Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PEIVATE BUSINESS.

Bankers' Guarantee Trust (Transfer) Bill [Lords],

Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

City and South London Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Edinburgh and Leith Corporations Gas Order Confirmation Bill,

"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act. 1899, relating to Edinburgh and Leith Corporations Gas," presented by Mr. Munro; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS SUPPLY.

Major PRESCOTT: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the can state the intentions of his Department with regard to the Report of the Fuel Research Board on Gas Standards, which recommends a change in the method of charging for gas; and whether the proposed change, if given legislative effect to, would be ultimately inimical to the interests of gas consumers?

The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Sir A. Geddes): The Report is under consideration by the Board of Trade and other Departments concerned, and I cannot state at present what action will be taken upon it. The Fuel Research Hoard in making their recommendations appear to have given full consideration to the interests of gas consumers, and they will be safeguarded in any Bill which His Majesty's Government may introduce to give effect to the Report.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the manufacturers of gas mantles are asking for two years' prohibition of imports; whether any understanding has been given that this will be done; whether he is aware that the shares of the principal company concerned have risen by 20s. a share in the last week, and are now thirty-four times the value they were in 1914, while mantles have risen from 1½d. and 2d. each to 8d. and 9d. each; and whether this form of protection is the considered policy of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. G. TERRELL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether the industry referred to in the question was not entirely under the control of a German trust before the War?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have heard of no such request as that indicated. Certainly no undertaking has been given about imports of gas mantles after 1st September. I am unable to trace any share movement of the nature indicated. The hon. Member appears to be comparing the pre-war wholesale price of mantles with the postwar retail price. Action so far taken is in accordance with the policy announced for the transitional period.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is he aware that the shares in the Welsbach Company stood at 2s. before the War and are now 7s. 6d.?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am not aware of any movement of the nature indicated in the question, and I have not seen recently what the shares of the Welsbach Company are standing at.

Mr. TERRELL: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman can answer my question?

Sir A. GEDDES: I apologise for any appearance of discourtesy. I thought the facts were so well known that it was unnecessary to refer to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — TIMBER IMPORTED (PRICES).

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether prices are fixed for certain classes of imported timber; whether such prices are considerably higher than the maxima which may be paid for home-grown timber; what is the average preference
per cent. thus given to the foreigner; and if he will explain why the same conditions are not applied to both home and foreign timber?

Sir A. GEDDES: Prices are not fixed for timber generally, but there are fixed maxima for pitwood, both home-grown and foreign. The prices for home-grown pitwood are fixed to allow a reasonable profit on the basis of the fixed prices for standing timber in force until 31st March last; those for foreign pitwood include charges for freight, insurance, handling and exchange, and are the lowest at which supplies can be obtained from foreign sources.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: What is the object of giving this preference to the foreigner? Would it not encourage the timber industry more if these maxima were removed in England?

Sir A. GEDDES: The position is this, that the Government controlled prices of standing wood up to a date not very long ago, and there does not seem to be any reason to allow the prices in this country now to go up to a level of the prices which we have to pay for pitwood brought from abroad, with all the heavy charges on them, because at present it is known exactly what the profits are, and they are reasonable profits.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is he aware that since these prices were fixed agricultural wages, which largely make up the cost of forestry, have been increased?

Sir A. GEDDES: I answered a question by my hon. and gallant Friend, I think it was, last week upon the relation of agricultural wages to the prices of pitwood, and I explained at that time that if it became necessary to reconsider the prices on the ground of wages reconsideration would be given.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: May I ask whether his Department are taking any steps to control profiteering in timber necessary for housing purposes?

Sir A. GEDDES: There is no control now in timber outside the very limited area of certain pitwoods. The general question of prices and profits touched upon by the hon. Member is a much bigger thing than merely referring to timber, and the whole of that question is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S CARS, PETERBOROUGH.

Mr. ALFRED SHORT: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in connection with the com plaint regarding the services of workmen's cars at Peterborough, no such cars are available in the morning after seven a.m.; and whether he will make representations to the company with a view to the time being extended until eight a.m., in order to meet the convenience of the workmen?

Sir A. GEDDES: I understand that weekly tickets for workmen, at reduced rates, are now issued, and that they are available by any car up to 8 a.m.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUNKER COAL.

Sir A. FELL: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the drifters and trawlers now working from Great Yarmouth are charged for their coal 55s. per ton whilst the same coal is retailed to private houses at 39s. per ton; that at Grimsby and Hull they are only charged 38s. per ton; that this handicap on the boats at Yarmouth must crush the industry unless it is remedied; and that the Controller of Coal Mines has refused to alter these prices for the Yarmouth boats; and what steps he will take to remedy this difficulty?

Sir A. GEDDES: The pit price of house coal is regulated by the Price of Coal. (Limitation) Act, which does not apply to ships' bunker coal. The controlled pit price of the coal supplied to trawlers at Yarmouth is on the same basis as that of coal supplied to trawlers at Grimsby and Hull, the difference between the delivered prices payable by the trawlers being due partly to longer rail haulage to Yarmouth and partly to charges for additional services in handling the coal at Yarmouth.

Sir A. FELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest what can be done to the industry at Yarmouth against the preference of these other towns of 17s. a ton?

Sir A. GEDDES: A great deal of the difficulty at Yarmouth arises, I am informed, through the lack of facilities for handling bunker coal, and we have had in the last few days an exhaustive Report upon the conditions of the Yarmouth harbour, and that is now being examined to see if an improvement can be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BRITISH TRADE POLICY.

Colonel BURN: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the manufacturing costs in all classes of machinery have risen in this country since the Armistice owing to the following main causes, namely, an advance of 5s. per week to all classes of labour in the engineering trade given by the Committee on Production as from 1st December last, a reduction in working hours from fifty-three to forty-seven Which became operative on the 1st January this year, the increased cost of coal owing to a 20 per cent. advance in wages and a reduction in working hours, and the removal of the Government subsidy on iron, the result of which is an increase of £3 per ton in the cost of pig iron and from £4 to £5 a ton in the cost of semi-manufactured steel; whether he is aware that since the Armistice there has been no increase in wages in the United States but a reduction of 10 per cent. in some cases and that further reductions are contemplated, and that in consequence of these facts American competitors in certain branches of the engineering trade are now able to undersell British manufacturers in British markets by fully 10 per cent.; and whether, in view of these considerations and the position at the moment of British competitive export trade, His Majesty's Government will fully and clearly declare the policy which it is proposed to adopt to safeguard the industrial vitality of the nation and ensure continuity of employment to the wage earning classes?

Sir A. GEDDES: Apart from the point made about coal I believe that the statements embodied in my hon. and gallant Friend's question are substantially correct. Under the transitional trade policy of the Government industry is showing signs of substantial revival. The situation is being most carefully watched and any steps that the Government can take which hold promise of being helpful are being taken from time to time in accordance with the policy announced in March. I hope that it will be possible soon after Peace is signed to announce the line of policy which will be followed by the Government after the end of the transitional period on 1st September.

Colonel BURN: Does not my right hon. Friend think it is absolutely necessary that a policy should be laid down, that it brooks
no delay, and that the country must know what the policy of the Government is in this matter?

Sir A. GEDDES: I absolutely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that it is of the greatest possible interest to the country to know what the policy is, but it is of even greater interest to the country to know that the policy is right, and it is not possible at the present moment, with so many uncertain factors, to be quite sure what is the best series of steps to take.

Mr. G. TERRELL: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman can explain what relation the Peace terms and the signing of Peace have to the question of restricting imports?

Sir A. GEDDES: The very greatest possible connection. Absolutely, the two are bound together. The whole question of the future trade policy of this country is bound up with the question of the exchanges and the amount of trade which different countries are going to be in a position to do, and it is not possible for us now to say, with so many factors uncertain, what is the best policy for the Government to recommend to this House.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Does not my right hon. Friend think it best to——

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter suitable for Debate.

BRUSH-MAKING TRADE (IMPORTS).

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether an agreement has been entered into with Japan and Italy to allow those countries to import brushes into the United Kingdom to the full extent of their 1916 imports; and, if so, whether the brush-making trade of this country, which is now in a position to supply all home requirements, was considered in this connection?

Sir A. GEDDES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The arrangement was made during the War, and provided for reciprocal advantages to this country. The matter is now being considered.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what those reciprocal advantages are?

Sir A. GEDDES: There is a very large number, a part of the general deal made during the War, and I am not fully
informed of all the facts that were before those who entered into the arrangements at the time. All I can say is that it appeared to the Government of the day a satisfactory arrangement, and we now have to stand by it.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman put himself in possession of the facts before the Adjournment?

Mr. SPEAKER: Complaint was made on the last occasion that we could not get on with the questions.

Mr. TERRELL: On a point of Order. The answer which my right hon. Friend has given opens a most important matter to the great body of Members of this House, and we desire a great deal more information on this subject. Therefore, I beg leave——

Mr. SPEAKER: The more important the matter is, the more important it is to give notice of it. You cannot expect Ministers to have at their finger-ends all the details and figures for which the hon. Member has asked. If he will give himself the trouble of putting the question down, he can obtain the information.

Mr. BILLING: Am I in order, having regard to the fact that the matter will be raised on the Adjournment, to ask the right hon. Gentleman to put himself in possession of these various facts of which he is ignorant, so as to be able to give satisfactory information on the subject?

Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly requires notice.

BRITISH MANUFACTURERS (CONTRACTS).

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in consequence of the uncertainty which manifests itself in, this country in relation to wages and cost of materials, large contracts extending over periods of time can only be tendered for by British manufacturers with a conditional clause providing for fluctuations in wages and cost of materials; whether foreign customers greatly prefer quotations at fixed prices covering a contract period; whether American manufacturers are in a position to quote fixed prices and are, as a matter of fact, doing so; whether, in these circumstances, the capacity of the British manufacturer to successfully compete for foreign contracts is considerably
prejudiced; and whether His Majesty's Government will, without delay, promulgate a national trade policy which would enable British manufacturers to control the home market and compete with reasonable probability of success in foreign markets?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am aware of the very great difficulties by which British manufacturers arc faced and the Government in its transitional trade policy has taken steps which experience shows not to have been unsuccessful to give them some security in the home market until the conclusion of Peace should open the markets of the world. Many of the difficulties, however, arise from the destruction of credit resulting from the War and can only be gradually overcome as production in all parts of the world regains momentum. As regards the last part of the question, I hope that it will be possible to bring forward proposals at an early date.

COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY WAR CABINET.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: 28.
asked who are the members of the Committee appointed to determine the relations between the Consular and Diplomatic Services and the Department of Oversea Trade and what are their terms of reference?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The Committee appointed by the War Cabinet has the following terms of reference:
To examine the question of Government machinery for dealing with trade and and commerce.

The following arc the names of the members of the Committee:

Viscount Cave, Chairman.
Sir Horace C. Munro, K.C.B.
Mr. F. Dudley Docker, C.B.
Mr. Kenneth Lee.

Sir S. HOARE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of adding to the Committee a representative of the Foreign Office to ensure that the Foreign Office point of view, as apart from the commercial point of view, shall be adequately considered?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am answering this question for my hon. Friend the Director of the Department of Oversea Trade; perhaps any further question might be put to him.

BRITISH EXPORTS (CREDIT FACILITIES).

Captain BOWYER: 33.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Oversea Trade Department if he will state what measures the Government have adopted, or propose to adopt, to assist British firms in the provision of export credit facilities to enable British export trade to France, Italy, and Belgium and other debtor nations to be maintained and extended?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am having the matter investigated to see if, with new statutory powers, the Government will be able to deal more satisfactorily with the difficulties indicated in my hon. Friend's question than it can at present. I hope to be in a position to make a statement at an early date.

IMPORT AND EXPORT TRADE.

Captain BOWYER: 34.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Oversea Trade Department whether a statement has been prepared showing the development of British import and export trade in 1918 expressed in the values of 1913; and, if not, whether such a statement can be presented to the House?

Sir A. GEDDES: Publication of information of this character was suspended during the War for reasons of public policy. My hon. and gallant Friend will recognise that the circumstances of the two years were so entirely different that almost any comparison would be misleading I am, however, having the figures examined to see whether and in what form they can be communicated.

GREAT BRITAIN AND AMERICA (TRADE RIVALS).

Mr. GRATTON DOYLE: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether it has been brought to his notice that reports are in circulation in America that the British censorship is making use of its opportunities to gain information concerning the business of American firms for the benefit of British trade rivals; whether he will set up an inquiry to discover the cause of these reports; and whether steps will be taken immediately to remove from the minds of the American public such suspicion as has been aroused?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Yes, Sir; these reports have been brought to my
notice. In no ease, however, have sufficient particulars been supplied to enable the statement to be investigated. Without any particulars it is, however, possible to give a definite assurance that at no time has the British Censorship been employed to assist British firms at the expense of their rivals in Allied or neutral countries. If any specific instance of alleged abuse of the censorship is given, it will, of course, be immediately investigated, but, as I have stated, no such instance has been given.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL SUPPLIES.

WORKING HOURS (REDUCTION IN OUTPUT).

Major NEWMAN: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been able to estimate the reduction in the output of coal that will be entailed by the reduction of working hours as from July next; and if he will say what measures are being taken to prevent the hardship to the householder from a shortage of coal being repeated in the winter of this year or from any further rise in price?

Sir A. GEDDES: The reduction in the output of coal that will be entailed by the reduction of working hours is estimated in the Sankey Report at about 10 per cent. 'The modifications that may have to be made in the Household Fuel and Lighting Order to meet the shortage of coal during the coming winter are now under consideration.

Colonel THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the coalfields in Nottingham are working short time because they cannot get trucks?

Major NEWMAN: Will ho say when these Regulations will be promulgated, so that the public will know?

Sir A. GEDDES: I cannot say more than that I have been over a preliminary draft of them, and there are not sufficient data, until we know exactly what the effect of the reduced working hours will be upon output, to decide exactly the form the Regulations shall take.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can he assure us that there will be no further increase of prices to consumers?

Sir A. GEDDES: No, it is not possible to say what is going to happen in the future, but we will do our best to see that there is no increase in prices.

Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the statement that they anticipate a coal shortage in the coming winter, will he see that the export of coal ceases, so that we may have a reserve in this country?

Sir A. GEDDES: If all export of coal were to cease, there might be something much worse than a coal shortage in this country.

ROYAL COMMISSION (COST).

Major NEWMAN: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what fee or remuneration for out-of-pocket expenses is paid to members of the Commission now sitting and taking evidence with regard to the nationalisation of the coal mines; is any fee or remuneration paid to those who elect or are requested to give evidence before that Commission; and what is the estimated total cost of the sittings of the Commission to the taxpayer?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Robert Home): I have been asked to answer this question: No fees are paid to the members of the Commission or to the witnesses, but they receive the usual subsistence allowances and necessary traveling expenses. The Commission is still sitting, and it not possible at present to estimate the total cost until the Commission has ceased to sit.

Major NEWMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what the subsistence allowance amounts to?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid I cannot tell you in detail, but they are the usual allowances given in similar circumstances?

COAL DELIVERIES.

Major NEWMAN: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether instructions have been issued by the Coal Controller that deliveries of coal are to equal those in the same period of 1917 and no more; and whether, in view of the fact of the greater supply of labour at the mines and in creased facilities of transport as compared with May, 1917, he can give the reason why this continued shortage exists?

Sir A. GEDDES: Instructions have recently been issued to collieries through the District Coal and Coke Supplies Committees that, wherever possible, deliveries to merchants are to be based on the deliveries for the same periods in 1917, where these are ascertainable. Where they are not ascertainable, the deliveries are to be
based on the corresponding deliveries for 1918. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Coventry on the 19th May.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPANESE SILK GOODS (OPERATIVES' WAGES).

Mr. REMER: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the wages paid to silk operatives in Japan on the silk manufactured goods at present being imported into this country, and the number of hours worked per day; and whether he will make representations to the Foreign Office that the treaty with Japan should be revised unless the Japanese employers pay their workmen on the same basis as British employers?

Sir A. GEDDES: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that no authoritative data are available as to the wages paid and hours worked at the present time in Japanese silk mills. With regard to the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that under the treaty we obtained a number of tariff concessions for British goods entering Japan, and that the undertaking to admit certain Japanese goods free of duty was given in compensation for those concessions.

Mr. REMER: I beg to give notice, in view of the reply, that I will refer to this question on the Adjournment to night.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANIES (PARTICULARS AS TO DIRECTORS) ACT.

Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, under the proviso contained in Section 2 (2) of the Companies (Particulars as to Directors) Act, 1917, exemption has been granted to any companies registered after 22nd November, 1916, from complying with the provisions of that Section, which requires the publication of the names of the directors on business letters and trade circulars; and, if so, in what circumstances exemption is granted?

Sir A. GEDDES: Numerous applications have been received for exemption from the
provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Companies (Particulars as to Directors) Act, 1917, and exemption has been granted in some cases. Applications for exemption are favourably considered where the name of the company substantially discloses the names of the directors, or, in the case of a large company, the nature of the business, and the directors are British-born subjects who have not changed their name; but each case must depend upon the particular circumstances. Exemption is not, as a rule, granted to a email private company, nor, as a matter of policy, is an exemption granted to a company which owns a newspaper.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

SUBURBAN RAILWAY STATIONS.

Mr. GILBERT: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the names of the fifteen London and suburban railway stations which have been permanently closed by the Railway Executive Committee?

Sir A. GEDDES: I will send the hon. Gentleman the information desired.

Mr. GILBERT: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the overcrowding of tramcars and motor-omnibuses in South London, he will urge the Railway Executive Committee to reopen all stations and work the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company's Victoria to City line, which has been closed down during the War, so as to relieve the pressure on existing travelling facilities in that district?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am making further inquiries into this matter, and will let the hon. Gentleman know the result.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINES DRAINAGE, SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE.

Mr. SITCH: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the very serious situation created in the coalmining industry of the Tipton, Old Hill, and Kingswinford areas of Stafford shire, through the failure of the operations carried on by the Mines Drainage Commission of those districts, he will be
prepared at an early date to receive a deputation representing the mine-owners concerned for the purpose of discussing the question and submitting suggestions for the more efficient protection of the property from flooding?

Sir A. GEDDES: The Controller of Coal Mines is receiving to-day a deputation from the South Staffordshire coal-owners.

Oral Answers to Questions — BINDER TWINE.

Colonel THORNE: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Government have estimated that 20,000 tons of binder twine will be required for the coming harvest; of this quantity the home manufacturers were to spin. 12,000 tons, 3,000 tons of the twine was held in Government hands from last season, and if he is aware that they intend to buy 5,000 tons from America; if he is aware that the estimate of 20,000 tons being required is proved to be on an incorrect basis, and that there is a large quantity of binder twine in the hands of the farmers and dealers left over from last season, and if he is aware that the firms of R. Hood Hagie and Sons, Limited, Willington Quay, and Craven and Speeding Brothers, Sunderland, employ over 1,500 women when working normally; that during the past three months a number of the women have been paid off, and that the firms in question contemplate paying off more; if he is aware that all the hemp rope makers in this country can make all the binder twine required for home purposes, and if he will take action in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The figure of 20,000 tons was mentioned as indicating the possible consumption of binder twine for the 1919 harvest, but it does not seem practicable for anyone to forecast requirements with any exactitude. The Board have no intention of buying binder twine from America, and they have already sold for export 2,000 tons out of the 3,000 tons carried over from last season. They have no definite information on the last part of the question, but a Press notice is being issued, urging farmers to place orders without further delay, which more than anything else will contribute to diminish unemployment in this trade.

Colonel THORNE: Do I understand from that answer that there is no intention at all of buying the 5,000 tons mentioned in the question? Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a few days ago an answer was given to a question that the Government had no intention of allowing any to be imported from America?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The question asked on that occasion was whether the Board was going to import any. I believe a small importation is being allowed—something like 2,000 tons—but that is not under the Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEEL IMPORTS.

Sir F. HALL: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if America is now able to import steel into this country at a price which enables manufacturers in the United States to undersell British manufactured steel by £4 10s. a ton and upwards, after allowing for freight and all other costs; and, if so, what practical steps have been taken by the Government to meet the position thus arising?

Sir A. GEDDES: I understand that American steel manufacturers are quoting prices for delivery in the United Kingdom lower than those quoted by British manufacturers (though not, so far as I am aware, to the extent suggested). As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government are not prepared at present to impose any restrictions upon the importation of iron and steel, in view of the demand in the country.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I put the amount at £4 10s. and upwards, and it is upwards instead of downwards; and as the Government have undertaken to protect the interests of this country, are they going to do anything or are they not?

Sir A. GEDDES: With the traditional policy that is being followed, the interests of the country are being protected to the best ability of the Government, but It is not so simple as my hon. Friend seems to imagine. There is a very great demand in this country for iron and steel, which at present producers in this country are unable to meet.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the iron is produced at
much nearer places to this country than the United States? Does it seem reasonable that they are able to send their produce into this country at £4 10s. and £5 less, to the great detriment of manufacturers in this country?

Sir A. GEDDES: I do not know whether it is reasonable or not, but it is a fact that they are producing iron and steel at the present moment more cheaply. It is also a fact that our export trade demands a large amount of iron and steel to work up things to be exported.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to move in this matter between now and the end of this Session to see whether something cannot be done for our own people?

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY.

Lieut.-Colonel AUBREY HERBERT: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the proposed partition of Turkey is in agreement with the 14 points?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not in a position to answer the question of the hon. and gallant Member either in the affirmative or the negative, since I have no knowledge of the proposed partition to which he appears to refer.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that the Arabs are not to be allowed to remain under the cruel persecution of the Turks?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMENIAN MASSACRES.

Lieut.-Colonel A. HERBERT: 26.
asked what steps are being taken to punish those German and Turkish officials responsible for the Armenian massacres?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Allies are determined that responsible officials shall not escape punishment. Many are already in custody, but the actual steps to be taken to ensure their receiving their deserts are under discussion in Paris.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether Enver and Taalat Pashas have yet been caught and whether——

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of his question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMYRNA.

Lieut.-Colonel HERBERT: 27.
asked if the Allies have landed at Smyrna in the cause of self-determination or for the sake of self-interest?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The landing at Smyrna was carried out by the direct orders of the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference in accordance with the terms of Article 7 of the conditions of the Armistice with Turkey.

Lieut.-Colonel HERBERT: Arising out of that answer, may I ask if it is true that rabies have spread to Paris?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (BRITISH AMBASSADOR).

Lieut.-Colonel ARTHUR MURRAY: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to announce the name of the successor to the Earl of Reading as His Majesty's Ambassador to the United States of America?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I regret that I am still not in a position to add anything to my replies to previous questions put to me on this subject by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman report to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State the great harm that is being done to British interests in America by this long delay in giving the name, and can he say when a decision will be arrived at?

Major Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. Gentleman put the names in a hat and pull one of them out?

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW STATES RECOGNISED.

Mr. MacVEAGH: 31.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what new States the Government has given recognition within the past five years?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have definitely recognised the following Governments:
The Governments of Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, and Finland. Provisional recognition has also been granted to the Esthonian National Council, and to the
Lettish National Council as de facto independent bodies. The belligerent status of the Arabs has also been recognised.

Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he can give the House an assurance that all these places are a long, long way from Tipperary?

Oral Answers to Questions — BANKING (BRITISH AND AMERICAN).

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: 32.
asked (1) the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether British banks desiring to establish branches in the United States have to obtain a licence, are subject to a differential tax on their earnings, and are prohibited from accepting local deposits, while in British Colonies United States banks are treated on the same footing as English banks; (2) the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether American banks are permitted to establish themselves in British colonies on more favourable terms than are extended to British banks in the United States?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The facts as regards the position of British banks in the State of New York are substantially as stated, but His Majesty's Government have no information as to the regulations in other parts of the United States. The attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to the subject, which is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

AGRICULTURE (WAGES).

Mr. TALBOT: 35.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Report of the Committee for investigating the costs of production of wheat and other agricultural produce on the basis of the rates of agricultural wages recently fixed will soon be published, in view of its importance both for the guidance of farmers and for the information of the Royal Commission?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Committee appointed by the Agricultural Wages Board to report on financial results of farming and the costs of living have presented their Report and it was laid before Parliament
on 14th March. The Agricultural Costings Committee is at present considering a scheme of work throughout the United Kingdom and organising a staff for the purpose, but will not be in a position to make a Report for some time.

Oral Answers to Questions — KEW GAEDENS (APPOINTMENT).

Mr. J. JONES: 36.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that recently a temporary labourer employed at Kew Gardens was promoted to the position of constable and that a number of regular employés who have been serving in the forces and are now demobilised have been passed over in making this appointment; whether the claims of these men were considered before the appointment was made; and whether he will have this matter reconsidered?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The answer to the first part of tie question is in the affirmative. The man referred to has already served as a constable at Kew to the entire satisfaction of the Board for four years. The claims of regular employés who have been serving in the forces, and have now reverted to their civil duties, were duly considered before the appointment was made. The Board do not propose to reconsider the appointment.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why the claims of men who have served in Government Departments are not to be considered before those of the temporary employé?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have said in the answer that they were considered. As a matter of fact this man was specially suitable, having served as a constable for four years. Although he did not actually serve he volunteered in 1914.

Mr. HOGGE: Why, in view of all the Government has said about giving the first opportunity to old employés who have served, that now a post is vacant it is given to a man who has not served?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I quite agree with my hon. Friend, that other things being equal, preference should always be given to the man who has served. In this case it was understood that this was by far the best man.

Mr. JONES: Does the hon. Gentleman say that a physically fit man who has been demobilised is not better than an unfit man who has never served?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENSORSHIP.

Major Sir B. FALLE: 29.
asked why the censorship of letters, etc., is still continued in the Islands of Jersey and Guernsey?

Mr. FORSTER: I have been asked to answer this question. So long as censorship continues in the United Kingdom, so long is it necessary to continue the censorship in the Channel Islands. The mails which are subject to censorship there are examined under the same Regulations as apply to similar mails to and from the United Kingdom.

Mr. BILLING: Is it proposed to abolish the censorship on the signing of Peace?

Mr. FORSTER: I hope it may be possible to abolish the censorship as soon as the blockade ceases.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS).

Brigadier-General CROFT: 37.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General on the appropriation accounts of the Ministry of Munitions, which includes the case of a phenol-picric acid factory; whether he will state what was the factory and what were the manager's name and qualifications; how many days per week he worked at the factory; and how much he received as salary in respect of this factory?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The Report of the Controller and Auditor-General is now before the Public Accounts Committee. Until that Committee reports no statement can be made on the particular cases cited by the Controller and Auditor-General.

Oral Answers to Questions — STAFFORDSHIRE (COAL MINES).

Mr. SHORT: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, owing to the inadequacy and frequent breakdowns of the pumping arrangements in the coal mines of the Tipton, Old Hill, and Kingswinford areas of Staffordshire, over 100,000,000 tons of coal, in addition to great quantities of ironstone, are now submerged with water, and that the water is daily rising and threatens to overflow to other and deeper mines; and whether he will immediately take steps not only to present level of the water, in order to present level of the water, in order to allow of the recovery of the minerals and secure the mines from greater damage if not permanent closure?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am aware that there has been failure owing to breakdown of the pumping arrangements to deal successfully with the water flowing into the mines in the Tipton area of South Staffordshire, and that that area is, on the advice of the mining experts recently employed by me, being abandoned; but emergency measures are being taken with a view to safeguarding the Old Hill, Kingswinford, and Oldbury areas against inundation. The amount of coal and ironstone lost through the flooding of the Tipton area is probably about 20,000,000 tons; the annual output from which is about 400,000 tons.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLAX COMPANIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) ACT.

Major NEWMAN: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what amount of public money has been advanced to individuals or companies under the Flax Companies (Financial Assistance) Act; how much flax will be harvested this year in Great Britain as the result of moneys so advanced; and will the crop be dressed in mills that have been or are being erected in various parts of Great Britain by public moneys?

Sir A. GEDDES: My hon. and gallant Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. The Act in question does not permit of any advances out of public funds to flax-growing undertakings, but only authorises companies or associations to take shares in or make or guarantee loans take any limited liability company formed for the purpose, such action being subject to the approval of the Board of Trade.

Major NEWMAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the last part of the question. There are two questions?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have no knowledge of the last part of the question.

Major NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter came before the Standing Committee which is considering Estimates?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (USE OF MOTOR CARS).

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 38.
asked how many motor cars are allotted for the use of officials of the Ministry of Munitions?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Twenty-five cars are allotted for the use of Ministry of Munitions officials at the various headquarter offices in London, and twenty-four are allotted in the principal provincial centres.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Under what authority are these cars used? Could the hon. Member say how many of these cars are allowed to be used?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The usual authority given to a Minister.

Sir H. CRAIK: May I ask whether it was the habit before the War of Civil servants to use these cars, and, if not, why we cannot now revert to the condition of things that existed before the War?

Mr. KELLAWAY: That is a question as to general policy, which should not be answered by me.

Sir E. CARSON: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he does not understand that the continued action of the Departments in this direction is causing a good deal of unpleasantness?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I am sorry that I was not listening to the supplementary questions. I understand that these cars are used for Government purposes. We have tried many times to deal with this subject, and I promise that I will try again.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table of the House a list of all the cars used by Government Departments, together with their horse-power?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Have any steps been taken to limit the use of these cars to official business?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That was done long ago.

Sir H. CRAIK: Will my right hon. Friend look at what occurs every day in Pall Mall and St. James's during the luncheon hour, and will he say whether Civil servants are not by an entirely new rule employing these cars to be carried to their luncheon?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I know there is a good deal of complaint about that, and I am afraid there is some cause for it. I can only promise again that I will inquire into the matter.

Sir H. DALZIEL: May we take it that this scandal will be stopped?

Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman now see the value to be attached to supplementary questions?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a demonstration to the contrary.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does it not show that the time devoted to supplementary questions is most valuable?

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 39.
asked how many motor cars are lent by the Ministry of Munitions for the use of each Government Department?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Fifty-nine cars are allotted by the Ministry of Munitions to thirteen other Government Departments, with the sanction of the Treasury in each case. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the Departments and the number of cars allotted.

The following are the particulars mentioned:


Foreign Office, News Department
1


Ministry of Reconstruction
1


Ministry of Labour
35


Ministry of Shipping
6


Board of Agriculture (Scotland)
1


Local Government Board
1


Board of Trade
5


H.M. Petroleum Executive
1


Imperial War Museum
1


War Cabinet (Sir Eric Geddes' staff)
2


Ministry of Pensions
3


Board of Education
1


Ministry of Food (Liverpool)
1


Total
59

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Is it true that one of the persons supplied with a car was Lord Cunliffe, and, if so, can he say why?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I will circulate with the Report the names of the Departments concerned.

Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman call for a Report as to the names of the persons who are using these motor cars?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I think that question should be addressed to the Departments concerned.

Sir H. DALZIEL: Has not the time arrived when they might try a ride in. the busses?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 76.
asked the President of the Local Government Board how many motor cars are allotted for the use of officials of the Local Government Board?

The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Addison): No motor car has been allotted for the use of officials of the Local Government Board, but arrangements have been made with the Ministry of Munitions for the use of cars by the Housing Commissioners for special journeys.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how many cars are borrowed from the Ministry of Munitions?

Dr. ADDISON: None have been allotted to our officials. I do not know how many cars have been borrowed.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by officials on the Housing Committee?

Dr. ADDISON: It means anybody employed by the Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL MACHINE GUN FACTORY, BURTON-ON-TRENT.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: 40.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has received any protests regarding the proposal to close down the national machine-gun factory at Burton-on Trent; and whether it will be possible to reconsider this matter, with a view to utilising the factory in the national interests?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes, Sir, certain protests have been received. It is intended that the factory shall be used in the national interests—mainly, as a store for machine guns—and a certain amount of labour will be employed in the work as storage and maintenance. The factory will also be retained as a reserve unit for the manufacture of machine guns.

Oral Answers to Questions — HAMPTON COURT PALACE GARDENS.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 41.
asked the First Commissioner of Works by whom the suggestions for alterations to Hampton Court Palace gardens were submitted to him; and whether he will give the names of the horticulturists and landscape gardeners composing the Advisory Committee which be proposes to appoint?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): I am not disposed on principle to give the names of persons who make suggestions to me on questions for which I am responsible whether acted on or not. I shall be willing to announce to the House the names of the proposed Committee directly it is constituted.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has not all this trouble arisen from the interference of an old lady who is related to one of the right hon. Gentleman's officials, and who thinks she knows a lot about gardening?

Sir A. MOND: That is certainly not the case.

Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Why did the right hon. Gentleman think it necessary to alter a garden which for centuries 1 as been regarded as one of the beauty spots of England?

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman cease to tamper with old British possessions?

Oral Answers to Questions — CABLES.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHS: 42.
asked the Postmaster-General how many cables there are between the British Isles and North America; and how many of these cables touch British territory only?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): There are fourteen cables
between the British Isles and North America. They all land in Canada or Newfoundland, and there are extension cables or landlines between Canada and Newfoundland on the one hand and the United States on the other by means of which they can be used for communication with the latter country.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION.

Mr. HIGHAM: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the fact that when trunk calls to Glasgow are given to the London exchanges subscribers are in formed that the operator is not allowed to state the time of the delay, and that this is causing great inconvenience to business firms with whom telephone communication between London and Glasgow is of vital importance to their business; and will he explain the reason for this action on the part of telephone operator?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Public notice was given in October, 1918, of the general suspension of the practice of informing subscribers when their trunk calls were likely to be delayed. The trunk service is still being worked under difficult conditions, and it would not be practicable to keep the operators booking trunk calls informed of the delay on all routes. But I am considering to what extent the wishes of the hon. Member can be met, and will inform him of the result.

Oral Answers to Questions — LES ATTAQUES MILITARY PRISON (PUNISHMENTS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the report which has been published in the "Daily Herald" with regard to the conditions obtaining at Les Attaques Military Prison, near Calais; if, as there stated, men are confined in this camp for trivial offences such as the over staying of leave for a few days; if they are supplied with only one blanket each in the coldest weather and are flogged and placed in irons and handcuffs for conversing with each other; and, if there are no grounds for these charges, will he consider as to the taking of criminal proceedings for the publication of such reckless and libellous statements for the purpose of bringing the Army into disrepute?

Mr. FORSTER: The Report from France has now been received, and it shows that the allegations referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend are quite unfounded. The men are supplied with the same number of blankets as all other troops on the lines of communication living under canvas. No men are put in irons unless the governor of the prison is satisfied that it is necessary on account of violence. As regards the offences for which men are confined in the camp, these are of all descriptions, and include the most serious criminal offences, as well as comparatively small offences for which short sentences have been awarded.

Sir F. HALL: Will the Government forthwith take steps against those who have circulated these reports, which are detrimental to the interests of the British Army and will the right hon. Gentleman take immediate steps in the matter, because this question has now been on the Paper for fourteen or sixteen days waiting for this Report?

Mr. FORSTER: We will consider it.

Sir F. HALL: Is not all this libellous? Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate how libellous it is on the British soldiers and officers, and surely, under the circumstances, they are entitled to the protection of this House and of the country?

Mr. FORSTER: I say that the matter will be considered.

Sir F. HALL: Will it be done?

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Surely the character of the governor of this prison should be cleared?

Mr. FORSTER: I hope I have cleared it.

An HON. MEMBER: Were any of them flogged?

Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. So far as I know there were no cases of that sort.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRICK INDUSTRY.

Brigadier-General CROFT: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that numerous brickfields throughout the country are unable to resume operations owing to lack of capital; and whether, having regard to the fact that thousands of men suitable
for employment are receiving unemployed donation, he will take immediate steps to arrange advances of capital to all such brickfields in the interests of urgent problems of the building trade as also of national economy?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have been asked to answer this question. The Government have given assistance to the trade by placing orders with makers at prices ensuring a reasonable profit, and by making liberal payments on account so soon as the bricks were out of the kiln, and before actual delivery. These arrangements have produced satisfactory results, and it is hoped will have the effect of putting the trade on a sound footing.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not a fact that in many parts of the country building operations are entirely held up through lack of bricks, and what steps are the Department going to take to see that brickfields which are unable to obtain capital owing to labour uncertainty will get a start in the production of bricks?

Mr. KELLAWAY: All my information shows that it is not a fact that building operations are being held up for lack of bricks.

Sir F. HALL: Are any bricks being exported?

Oral Answers to Questions — VILNA (POLISH OCCUPATION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Allies sanctioned the Polish occupation of the Lithuanian city of Vilna; whether he is aware that the Lithuanians desire to have no connection with Poland; and whether he is aware that the actions of the Polish Army in Vilna in pillaging the Lithuanians there has still further embittered the relations between these two distinct races?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the negative. As regards the second and third parts of the question, I do not feel authorised to speak for the Lithuanians.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is not Lithuania in North-East Poland, and is it not a fact
that they have threatened to get up a civil war against the system of government?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Member not aware that at the bottom of this difficulty is the clerical question of imposing an alien Church on those people?

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not a fact that the Poles, unauthorised by the Allies, took Vilna, massacred 2,000 Jews and put a large number of Lithuanians to the sword without the sanction of the Allies?

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPTAIN FRYATT.

REINTERMENT IN ENGLAND.

Commander Sir EDWARD NICHOLL: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to have the body of the late Captain Fryatt removed from its resting-place in Belgium to this country for interment, as a lasting tribute to his memory and to that of the 17,000 British merchant seamen drowned and murdered by enemy submarine action during the War?

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 61.
asked the Prime Minister if representatives of the Mercantile Marine have urged upon the Government the removal of Captain Fryatt's body from Belgium and its re-interment with due honours in this country; and, if so, whether any decision has yet been come to?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I need not say that the feeling of admiration of the splendid bravery of Captain Fryatt, which found such universal expression at the time and which was so typical of the spirit displayed by the whole Merchant Service throughout the War, is fully shared by the Government, and I understand that arrangements on the same lines as those adopted in the case of Miss Cavell are being made.

Sir E. CARSON: Will the Government consult with the Mercantile Seamen's Guild, who have been in communication with Mrs. Fryatt on the subject?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not been able to find out exactly what has been done, but I understand that the arrangements, as in the case of Miss Cavell are being undertaken by a private society of some kind, and I think the Mercantile Guild is included in it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT (METROPOLITAN AREA).

USE OF GOVERNMENT LORRIES.

Mr. HIGHAM: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of placing Government lorries on the streets of London, operated by members of the Vehicle Workers' Union, in order that the present overcrowding of omnibuses and tramcars may be to some extent remedied, and in particular to avoid another death being caused through this overcrowding if the present congestion of London traffic is not immediately dealt with?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have been asked to reply. The possibility of using lorries is being examined this week. I have called a conference for to-morrow to see whether arrangements can be made to give effect to this suggestion.

LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS COMPANY (FARES).

Mr. HIGHAM: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of the Government introducing a Bill to give them powers to compel the London General Omnibus Company to immediately reduce their fares?

Colonel GIBBS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. If the investigation which is now proceeding should show that the fares are excessive I will consider what should be done, but I hope that legislation will not be necessary.

Mr. HIGHAM: If the figures are found excessive, will the Government take this-power without further consideration?

Colonel GIBBS: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down another question.

APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether his attention had been called to the practically unanimous wish of the London and Greater London Members, representative of all parties, that a Select Committee should be at once appointed to investigate the grave congestion in the existing means of transport in the Metropolitan area, together with the persistent increase in fares, and to make recommendations for immediate improvement, either
by way of legislation or otherwise; and whether the Government is prepared to give effect to the proposal?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have discussed this matter with the Ministers concerned. I hope that the work of a Select Committee on this subject will be useful, and I propose to set it up immediately.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN EXCHANGES (FLUCTUATIONS).

Mr. G. MURRAY: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether the extreme fluctuations in the foreign exchanges are handicapping trade, and that until the exchanges are placed upon a more stable basis any appreciable revival of trade cannot be expected; whether, in these circumstances, the matter is receiving the attention of the Government and the Peace Conference; and whether anything is being done with a view to re-establishing the credit of the various countries who are in need of it with a view to stabilising exchanges?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am fully alive to the importance of this question, which has formed the subject of informal discussions in Paris.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the quickest, the surest, and the best method to remedy this situation would be to remove the restrictions upon shipping and trade, and, in connection with that, is he aware that the United States export trade for the month of April reached the huge record of 715,000,000 dollars?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better given notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA CHARTERED COMPANY.

Mr. WALLACE: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the published statement that the provisional claim of the Chartered Company against His Majesty's Government of £7,500,000 is incomplete, and that several millions are to be added for interest, public works, and charges arising out of the War; and whether any indication has yet been given to His Majesty's Government
of how many millions sterling are likely to be added to the provisional claim of £7,500,000?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TERMS AND CELEBRATIONS.

Sir A. FELL: 53.
asked the Prime Minister if the date suggested for the Peace celebrations, namely, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th August, can be reconsidered and regard paid to the fact that this time will be the height of the visitors' season at the seaside resorts, and it will be impossible properly to organise any public rejoicings there, whilst the inland towns will also suffer from the absence of their usual in habitants; and if he will consider the desirability of the substitution of the middle of July, when the rejoicings can be carried out by the ordinary inhabitants before the summer migration begins?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As I informed the House last week, no decision has yet been taken, and the suggestion contained in this question will be considered.

Sir F. HALL: 67.
asked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the manifesto published on page 3 of the "Daily Herald" of 22nd May, 1919, with respect to the Allied terms of Peace; if, as it would appear that the terms of such manifesto were communicated to the signatories from Germany, he can state whether any communication on the subject from the German Government or other sources has been transmitted through the post to any of those concerned; and, if so, if he will state on what grounds it was decided not to exercise the powers of censorship still possessed by the British Government, in view of the enemy character of the manifesto?

Mr. FORSTER: I have been asked to answer this question. As far as is known, no communication on this subject was transmitted through the post, but some channels for postal communications from Europe to the United Kingdom are controlled by Allied, and not by the British, censorship.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (FREE RAILWAY PASSES).

Major PRESCOTT: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have
further considered the suggestion as to the granting of free railway passes to Members between their constituencies and Westminster, and whether he is in a position to make any announcement on the subject?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The subject is being considered, and I hope that an early decision will be reached.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will it be favourable?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

WIDOWS AND PRE-WAR PENSIONS.

Commander KING: 56.
asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to remove the disparity between the pensions for widows who have lost their husbands in the country's service and the amount of benefit at present being paid to unemployed women, and between the rate of pre-war pensions for men of His Majesty's Services and the amount of unemployment benefit being paid to men?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Pensions awarded for life do not seem to me comparable with temporary unemployment donation limited to a few weeks. I may add that payment of one does not exclude payment of the other to the same individual.

Commander KING: If 25s. is considered the least on which an unemployed unmarried munition worker can live, does the right hon. Gentleman think that 13s. 6d. per week is enough for a childless widow?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that we can usefully make any comparison between a temporary unemployment donation and a permanent pension?

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: We really must get on. I dare say that supplementary questions are of great advantage, but one of the disadvantages of them is that they leave a large number of hon. Members very discontented because their questions are not reached.

Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have called upon the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. G. Doyle).

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Colonel GRETTON: 58.
asked the Prime Minister if he will give the names of the gentleman forming the Committee to advise the War Cabinet on the subject of the control of the liquor trade?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It has never been the custom and I do not think it would be right to give the names of a Cabinet Committee of this kind.

Colonel GRETTON: Do I understand that this Committee consists exclusively of members of the Cabinet, or are there members of the Central Control Board on it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say offhand, but I understand that it is a Committee of members of the Government, though I am not quite sure that some members of the Central Control Board may not be on it.

Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that it is principally composed of Nonconformist supporters of the Prime Minister?

Oral Answers to Questions — OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.

Mr. LAMBERT: 59.
asked the Prime Minister if he can assure the House that the Committee on the unemployment donation will report before the House rises for the Whitsun vacation?

Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to reply to this question. I understand that it will not be possible for the Committee to complete the hearing of the necessary evidence in time to enable a Report to be made before the House rises for the Whitsun vacation; but it is hoped that at any rate an interim Report on points which appear to call for immediate action will be made very shortly after Whitsun.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 60.
asked the Prime Minister what reply Admiral Koltchak made to the proposal to allow assistance to Russia as proposed by Dr. Nansen; and whether he declined to suspend hostilities in order that that relief might be carried out?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As regards the first part of the question, His Majesty's Government are not aware that the pro-
posal was communicated by Dr. Nansen to Admiral Koltchak. The second part of the question therefore does not arise.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Government aware whether the question was submitted to Admiral Koltchak by anybody else?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do you deny that Admiral Koltchak knew of the proposal?

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION).

Sir J. D. REES: 62.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it has been decided to appoint a special Commission for expediting the repatriation of enemy civil and military prisoners of war upon the formal conclusion of peace?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative. This question is already under consideration in Paris.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 63.
asked the Postmaster-General which London telephone exchanges the records of observations were made resulting in the discovery that on the average only one call in every 160, approximately, was cut off during the course of conversation; whether the above average includes the occasions upon which subscribers have been cut off twice or three times in the course of the same conversation; and whether any record is kept of the number of occasions upon which a subscriber is given a wrong number?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The observations extended over all the principal exchanges in the London area. The figure of one in 160 includes cases where a subscriber was cut off more than once in the course of the same conversation. A record is kept of cases in which a wrong number is connected. Out of a large number of calls observed in London during a recent six months a wrong number was connected 3.8 times in 100 calls, including cases in which the caller asked for a wrong number.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Would it be helpful to the right hon. Gentleman to receive other records from time to time on the
subject, even although they may not be so optimistic as those of the Post Office statistics?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Yes, I shall be pleased to have them.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 64 and 65.
asked the Postmaster-General (1) the exact amount of the adjusted net revenue, surplus or deficit, on the telegraph and telephone services for each of the years from 1912-13, inclusive; (2) the amount of provision actually made in the Estimates of the Post Office for the depreciation of telephone and telegraph plant and buildings during the current year; and what were the corresponding amounts for the financial years 1913–14, 1914–15, 1916–17, and 1918–19?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I will circulate in the Official Report a statement giving the figures required in this and the following question.

The following is the statement referred to:

The balances of the Telegraph and Telephone Net Revenue Accounts of the Post Office as shown in the published Commercial Accounts are as follows:—


Year.
Telegraph.
Telephone.



£
£


1912–13
…
-1,175,347
303,343


1913–14
…
-1,211,742
239,111


1914–15
…
-1,232,955
-111,018


1915–16
…
-520,047
-118,177


1916–17
…
-529,639
201,729


1917–18
…
-556,330
355,468

These balances were arrived at after charging interest, etc.

From the year 1914–15 onwards they are affected by abnormal war conditions.

The amounts provided for plant depreciation in the Telegraph and Telephone Commercial Accounts of the Post Office are as follows:—


Year.
Telegraph.
Telephone.



£
£


1913ߝ14
…
268,623
1,471,320


1914ߝ15
…
271,510
1,613,678


1915ߝ16
…
282,031
1,730,526


1916ߝ17
…
287,618
1,753,241


1917ߝ18
…
293,644
1,781,891

The cost of renewals in the same period is given below. It should be explained that during the War years the expenditure on renewals was kept as low as possible, and that as a considerable part of the plant is comparatively new the charge for renewals is much below the provision for depreciation.

Year.
Telegraph.
Telephone.



£
£


1913–14
…
117,333
633,975


1914–15
…
124,532
739,784


1915–16
…
88,712
705,497


1916–17
…
129,955
508,417


1917–18
…
108,339
465,731

As regards buildings, the charge for depreciation against the Telegraph and Telephone Accounts is included in the rentals, which are based on user.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 66.
asked the Postmaster-General the estimated depreciation of the securities held by the Post Office as assets against the liability to depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank; and what provision has been made to offset this depreciation?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question on this subject put on the 7th May by the hon. Member for Worcester.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BUILDING OPERATIONS (BRICK SUPPLY).

Brigadier-General CROFT: 68.
asked the Minister of Reconstruction whether the Hamworthy brickfields are being used as an ammunition dump; and whether, in view of the fact that building operations in the South and West of England are being held up through lack of bricks, he will take immediate steps to assist this brickfield to resume operations?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have been asked to answer this question. My hon. and gallant Friend has been misinformed. The Hamworthy brickfield was returned to the owners on 28th February, and the firm has accepted an order from the Ministry for 2,000,000 bricks. With reference to the second part of the question, I am advised that there is an ample supply of bricks to meet the Government building programme, and any work which may be undertaken by private enterprise.

SEDGEFIELD PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

Colonel ROUNDELL: 78.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the rural district council of Sedgefield, in the county of Durham, has declined to approve plans for erecting houses by private enterprise on the ground that in their opinion the number of houses per acre should not exceed twelve; and whether this action is ultra vires?

Dr. ADDISON: I have no information from the local authority with regard to the matter to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but I am making inquiries and will communicate with him further.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRONSTONE WORKINGS (RE-INSTATEMENT OF LAND).

Mr. WATERSON: 77.
asked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware of the fact that ironstone firms, after disturbing the land to get the required mineral, are leaving the land in an unfit condition either for agricultural purposes or safe for cattle to graze upon; and whether he intends to draft a Bill compelling these owners to put into a proper state the land that they have disturbed?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Northants Agricultural Executive Committee have called the attention of the Board to certain cases in which land had been rendered unfit for cultivation by ironstone workings. The area affected is not considerable, but the Board are making further inquiries as to whether the restoration of the land to cultivation can be ensured without the exercise of special powers requiring legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL LIBRARIES (EXPENSE OF MAINTENANCE).

Mr. WATERSON: 79.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that the general public are benefiting through the agencies of local libraries and that their extension is somewhat hampered owing to increased cost of essentials, he will consider the advisability of giving powers to the local authorities to exceed the statutory limitation of expense (where private Acts have not been enacted), in order that these institutions may be efficiently maintained?

Dr. ADDISON: The suggestion of the hon. Member will be borne in mind when legislation on the subject of public libraries is being undertaken.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOUNDRIES (HEALTH CONDITIONS).

. Mr. DAVISON: 81
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the industrial conditions now existing in a large number of foundries in the United Kingdom which prejudicially affect the health of the people employed therein; and whether he will at an early date appoint a Committee of Inquiry representative of all sections of the industry to consider the matter and to recommend the application of remedial measures by legislative enactment?

Sir R. HORNE: This question should be addressed to the Home Office, but I will answer. I am not aware to what particular conditions or classes of foundries the hon. Member refers, but if he will furnish me with the information in his possession I shall be glad to make any necessary inquiry. Regulations were made in 1908 to deal with injurious fumes which arise during the process of casting in certain brass foundries, and these Regulations, I understand, have had excellent results. No general representations as to unhealthy conditions in other classes of foundries have been received at the Home Office.

Mr. WATERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive a deputation from the industry in order that the facts may be submitted to him?

Sir R. HORNE: If my hon. Friend will ask that question of the Home Secretary, he will, no doubt, get an appropriate answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGES OF WORKMEN, WAINFLEET ST. MARYS.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: 82.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the discharge of workmen employed upon hut building at Wainfleet St. Marys, Lincolnshire, the reason given being that they were previously employed as agricultural labourers; and whether he will take steps to prevent men being forced into the ranks of the unemployed, it being also an interference with the liberty of the subject in the engaging of his labour?

Sir R. HORNE: I understand that the employers at the works mentioned in the question engaged the two men without the knowledge that they were agricultural labourers. Upon ascertaining the facts, the firm advised the men to seek work on the land, and subsequently discharged them. I am making further inquiries as to whether work has been offered to them on the land.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

LEAVE FOR INDIAN DRAFTS.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: 84.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he is aware that Leading Air-Mechanic Daniel Mahoney, No. 62750, late 49th Squadron, Royal Air Force, who had served twenty months in France, was ordered to leave Belgium for India at two hours' notice, which did not allow him time to send his personal belongings home; why it was that this soldier was not granted leave; whether he will see that steps are taken in the future to ensure that soldiers have an opportunity of seeing their relatives before being dispatched to India and like places at a great distance from home; and whether he will give facilities for Mahoney to return at an early date and, in the meantime, see that steps are taken to prevent the practice complained of being continued?

General SEELY: This airman is serving on an ordinary long service engagement with the Colours. The departure of the Squadron to which he was posted was too near at hand to make it possible to grant him home leave. Home leave is given before men are sent to distant stations providing the exigencies of the Service permit, and it is regretted that the urgency of the departure of this Squadron to India made it impossible to follow this general rule on this occasion.

TIMBER COMMITTEE.

Mr. REMER: 85.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he is aware that one of the co-opted members of his Timber Committee was the official responsible for sanctioning the use of cypress on aeroplanes; whether he is aware that not more than two members of the Committee have any practical experience of sawing or converting timber; whether he will state the date that this
Committee was appointed; and whether he will invite the National Federation of Sawmill Proprietors to nominate additional representatives to assist him in this important work?

General SEELY: I cannot accept the suggestion contained in the first part of the question. The decision was one arrived at by the responsible Technical Department on consideration of all the factors involved, one of which was the prospect of a future failure of supplies of better tried types of wood. The Timber Sub-Committee of the Conjoint Board was appointed on 10th October, 1917. Its composition is, I think, adequately representative for its purposes, but I will communicate the suggestion in the last paragraph of my hon. Friend's question to the Conjoint Board.

OFFICERS (TECHNICAL PAY).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 83.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether any decision has yet been arrived at as to awarding technical pay to officers in category B of the Royal Air Force; whether their duties are of less importance than those of the officers in category A; and whether, when a decision is arrived at, in the event of it not already having been reached, emoluments will be made retrospective to temporary officers as and from the date of the Air Ministry Order of 26th September, 1918?

Major-General SEELY: This matter has been very carefully considered, and it has been decided not to award technical pay generally to officers in category B, as their duties do not involve the same standard of technical knowledge as those of officers in category A.

Sir F. HALL: Is it not the case that the duties which attach to officers in category A include the inspection of fire appliances and sewing of gas balloons, whereas in category B it is necessary for officers to be well up in armaments and chemistry, and why are they treated on the same lines?

Major-General SEELY: This is a highly technical matter on which we might spend a quarter of an hour in arguing together. I shall be glad to write to my hon. Friend.

Sir F. HALL: That is not what I want.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

ENGINEER KEPT-ON OFFICERS (PAY).

Major Sir B. FALLE: 87.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give any information as to the pay and emoluments of the kept-on engineer officers, Royal Navy?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): This question is now before the Board, having been raised in one of the recommendations of the Jerram-Halsey Committee. That recommendation will be considered by the Board and the Government and a decision announced thereafter. I need not assure my hon. and gallant Friend that in this as in other matters arising out of the Jerram-Halsey Report, we shall do all we possibly can to secure early decision

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTSMOUTH SUPPLY DEPOT (BUTCHERY DEPARTMENT).

Major CAYZER: 88.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the twelve men employed in the supply depot, butchery department, Portsmouth, are not receiving the 12½per cent. bonus recently awarded, notwithstanding the fact that they have received all the previous awards granted, the same as the men employed at the dockyard and gun wharf; whether he will state why the discrimination has been made in this award; and whether he will issue instructions for the bonus to be paid to these men?

Mr. FORSTER: I have been asked to answer this question. The men referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend are not entitled to the 12½per cent. advance under any order or award. Inquiry will be made into the adequacy of their present pay.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS ABSENT.

Mr. HOGGE: This is the day for questions to the Secretary of State for India. Why is the right hon. Gentleman not here?

Mr. HURD: There are several questions down to the Food Controller. Cannot we have any answer.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have not the answer.

Mr. DEVLIN: But who blames Ministers when they do not attend? May I ask whether the Sergeant-at-Arms will send for these Ministers——

Mr. SPEAKER: He might have to send to Paris perhaps.

Oral Answers to Questions — FEDERAL DEVOLUTION.

Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: Can the Leader of the House find a day for discussing the Motion on Federal Devolution which stands in my name on the Paper?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I know there is a general desire in the House that there should be such a discussion. We hoped to be able to arrange that it should be next week, but as there is so much business that we must get through before the Adjournment, perhaps my right hon. Friend will put the question again on Thursday when I will give a definite answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR NAVIGATION.

CONVENTION APPROVED.

Mr. G. MURRAY: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Convention relating to Air Navigation has yet been agreed to by the Allied and Associated Powers, and, if so, whether he will lay the document upon the Table of the House?

General SEELY: Yes, Sir; I am glad to be able to tell the House that on Thursday last, in Paris, the Aeronautical Commission held its final meeting, and agreed to a Convention relating to Air Navigation. On this Commission the five principal Powers are represented, as also Belgium, Brazil, Cuba, Greece, Portugal, Roumania, and Serbia. The seven smaller Powers enumerated have been appointed by the Supreme Council to represent, on the Aeronautical Commission, all the smaller Powers at the Peace Conference. The Commission will agree upon a covering Report to be submitted to the Supreme Council. A few reservations by the Delegates of some of these States will be included in this Report. I do not expect that those reservations will affect the usefulness of the Convention. The document is of fifty-six pages, embodying general principles, nationality of aircraft, certificates of air worthiness and competency, and many other matters of great importance to air navigation. It is of great interest, and I hope to lay it on the Table on an early day.

Oral Answers to Questions — CITY AND METROPOLITAN POLICE.

Mr. BILLING: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether he is aware that the attitude of the Home Office with regard to the National Union of Police and Prison Officials has created a crisis which is likely to culminate in a general strike, and whether, having regard to the desirability of preventing such a national calamity, he will immediately set up a Committee upon which the police and prison officials shall have fair and just representation to inquire into the administration by the Home Office of the City and Metropolitan Police?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot accept as accurate the statement in the first part of this question, but the Government are fully alive to the situation, which is now under their consideration.

Mr. BILLING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that at the present moment a secret ballot is being taken by the police; whether the Home Office attitude of total indifference is driving this union into the hands of other unions, which is most detrimental to discipline and to the general welfare of the police, and will ho approach the subject in a humane and just manner?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall only answer the last part of the question. The reply is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can give us any information as to the Whitsuntide Recess?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We propose that the House should rise on Friday of next week, and resume again on the Tuesday fortnight, 24th June.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. BILLING: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether, having regard to the large number of supplementary questions which were asked at Question Time to-day, and to the fact that it has been generally admitted that useful work at Question Time can be done by means of supplementary questions, you would consider the question either of extending the time
allowed for questions or of limiting the number of questions put by each Member to one, so that each Member might have an opportunity of following up a subject to some point and getting from a Minister some general admission; since the fact of notice being given gives the Minister an opportunity of preparing an evasive reply which he is not nimble-witted enough to think of when a supplementary question is put?

BILLS PRESENTED.

RESTORATION OF PRE-WAR PRACTICES (NO. 3) BILL,—"to make provision with respect to the restoration after the present War of certain trade practices and to amend the law relating to munitions tribunals," presented by Sir Robert Horne; supported by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Wardle; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (IRELAND) BILL,—"to provide for improving and extending the procedure for obtaining Parliamentary powers by way of Provisional Orders in matters relating to Ireland," presented by Mr. MACPHERSON; supported by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor-General for Ireland, and Mr. Hugh Barrie; to be a road a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 89.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Housing, Town Planning, etc. Bill and on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Ministry of Health Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

COMMONS.

Ordered,

That Mr. Rowlands be discharged from the Select Committee on Commons.

That Mr. Sturrock be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Pratt.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had
discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Illingworth; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of 3 Edw. VII.)

The definition of the expression "working classes" contained in the Schedule, Clause 12 (e), of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1903 (3 Edw. VII., cap. 39), shall not apply to this Act.—[Colonel Sir Henry Norris.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Clause should come as an Amendment to the New Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson).

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Do I understand you to say, Mr. Speaker, that this Clause should go as an Amendment to the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: If it can be taken at all, it should come as an Amendment to the hon. Member's own New Clause. When we reach that point, I shall have to give a ruling upon it, and I think the effect of it will be to exclude the New Clause altogether.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of 45 and 46 Vict c. 38.)

The powers conferred upon a tenant for life by the Settled Land Act, 1882, shall include the following further powers:

(a) A power to sell or grant for such consideration in money, or otherwise as the person exercising the power may think fit, or for a nominal consideration or gratuitously any part or parts of the settled land, either in fee simple or for a term of years absolute or determinate for the purpose of the erection thereon of dwellings for the working classes, or the provision of gardens to be held in connection therewith. Provided that no more than two acres shall be granted as a site for such dwellings or gardens in any one parish without payment of the full consideration in money for the same;
(b) A power, where money is required for the provision of dwellings available for the working classes, to raise the money on mortgage of the settled land or of any part thereof by conveyance of the fee simple or other the estate, subject to the settlement or by creation of a term of years in the settled land or any part thereof or otherwise, and the money so raised shall be capital money for that purpose and may be paid or applied accordingly.—[Lieut. -Colonel Royds.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I beg to move,
The the Clause be read a second time.
4.0 P.M.
Various Acts of Parliament have been passed enabling tenants for life and limited owners to give or grant an acre or less from settled estates for special purposes, such as sites for chapels, schoolmasters' houses, extension of churchyards, and so forth. It is also not a novel proposal to introduce in a Housing Bill Amendments to the Settled Lands Act. Amendments have been introduced in the Housing Acts of 1885, 1890, and 1909. The Clause that I now bring forward for the consideration of the House is a further Amendment of the Settled Lands Act. The only previous Amendment to which I need refer is in the Housing Act. of 1890, which empowers a limited owner or tenant for life to sell land for the provision of dwellings for the working classes at the price which such land is worth for that purpose, although it might be worth a good deal more for other purposes. I think the time and circumstances demand that we should carry that power a little further. Instead, therefore, of a tenant for life only being able to sell land for the purpose of the provision of working-class dwellings at less than the land is worth, I propose that he shall have the power, but shall be under no obligation, to give any part of a settled estate not exceeding two acres in any one parish for the purpose of the provision of dwellings for the working classes. I might be asked to whom would he give the land? He will, of course, give the land to anyone who will build houses. The object of the Bill is to provide houses, and if anyone will build houses on land which is given either by the owner or by a limited owner of land, such as this Clause would empower a limited owner to give, it is well worth while giving him the power, and this would, at any rate, if it were acted on, provide a certain number. It might provide a considerable number. Of course, the owner is not under any obligation. It is purely a permissive Act, and he need not act on it unless he wishes; but I know quite a number of owners who wish to have this power.
The Bill provides mainly for the provision of houses by local authorities, but, side by side with that, we are looking to private enterprise also to do its share, and I cannot help hoping that the greater number of the homes of England will be provided by private enterprise and will be real homes and will not be houses erected
by municipal authorities. I am sure that among many of the working classes there is a very strong feeling against the provision of houses by municipal authorities, and I do not think any stone ought to be left unturned or any effort avoided which would in any way encourage the provision of more houses by private enterprise I was staying this week-end with a lady, and I told her of this Clause that I proposed to introduce. I only mention this because I am sure there are thousands of people holding the view she expressed. She said at once, "I shall be only too pleased to provide £1,200 or £l,400 if the owner will give the land, a couple of acres or so, to build cottages in the village in which I was born." We all hail from some village or town. The owner of the land in the village is not necessarily by any means a rich man. There are a number of people who come from the village who have made money, find as a thank offering for having been preserved from all the perils of war which threatened us would be only too pleased in this emergency to build a house or two if the land was provided and a free conveyance given. I think there ought to be a sort of central bureau formed to get the names of those who are willing to give land and those willing to build houses on it. This is a thoroughly practical proposal, and I have no doubt whatever that very considerable use could be made of it. In such an emergency as this we are not justified in leaving any source untapped in order to secure the provision of real homes for the working classes.
Under the Bill considerable assistance is going to be given to public utility societies and housing trusts. What a tremendous help it would be to them if the owner of land was willing voluntarily to convey free of charge a couple of acres for the purpose, and what an advantage it would be in many cases to the owner of the land to have those houses provided in his village and at someone else's expense. I do not look upon this altogether from a philanthropic point of view. I approach it also from a business point of view. As a matter of business it would be well worth the owner's while to give an acre, or if necessary two, in order that someone else might provide houses in his neighbourhood, and I do not see why it should be even a bad proposition for the person who provided houses, whether
it was a public utility society, a housing trust, or a private individual. I do not believe at all in the cost of houses going down very suddenly. Eighty per cent. of the cost of building houses now goes in wages. I am including, of course, the cost of construction and the cost of providing materials. I do not see very much prospect of wages going down in the near future, and I do not see how the cost of houses is going down, and if it is not going down rents and the value of the houses must go up. I do not think, therefore, even as a business proposition, certainly if the land was given by someone else, it would be at all a bad investment. But we cannot measure the importance of providing homes for the people from the purely economic aspect. Our returning soldiers are looking to see these houses springing up. The whole future of the country really lies in the satisfactory housing of the working classes. I do not think that can be satisfactorily solved by mere municipal building. I should like to quote a few words spoken some years ago by Canon, Barnett. He was one of the pioneers in housing and was not only a great and good man, but a thoroughly human and practical man. He said:
Municipal building is too easy and too cheap a remedy. The evil is too great" to be met by a vote of millions. The solution of the housing problem lies in the sense of fellowship. If English people felt deeply for their neighbours, they would have the will and they would find a way of preventing the evils which are destroying and degrading human beings.
This is one of the ways in which I think houses may be provided. I understand there is no opposition on the part of the Government, and that they rather welcome the Clause. I suggest that owners should select the best sites they have, facing south—cheerful houses. They should select the sites and offer them. What an immense amount of trouble is saved. How few people care to go to an owner and ask if he will sell a site for a pair of cottages. In many cases he cannot give it because his land is entailed. I propose to remove that, and to give power to offer it. If he offers the site with a free conveyance I cannot bring myself to believe that there will not be thousands of people who will be only too ready to make their thank offering in the shape of a cottage or a pair of cottages or more.
There is one suggestion I would make which I think will help in solving this problem of providing houses by private enter-
prise, and which I hope the Government will seriously entertain. I would ask them to exempt all houses for the working classes which are built by private enterprise from rates for a period of five years. It is a very small thing to ask. No concessions whatever have been made in the Bill in favour of private enterprise. No doles and no Grants are being given. On the other hand, if a private owner builds a house, he will not only have to be rated on it, but it will also have to bear the loss falling on the rates in consequence of municipal building. If he provides private houses, he is saving the Government from considerable expenditure. I do not think any proposal could be made which would more help private enterprise than that houses built by private enterprise in the course of the next five years should be exempted from rating. It would be a good business arrangement for the Government to make in every sense of the word, and I hope they will give serious consideration to it, and will introduce legislation dealing with it. If this Clause is accepted, I cannot help thinking that all persons who take advantage of it, and all owners who give land without having to give it under the powers of the Clause, will never regret having taken such a step. They will have been contributing to the solution of this problem in the only way in which it can really be satisfactorily solved, by providing homes for the people by private enterprise. It would be a slur and a disgrace really to this rich country that any considerable number of the working classes should have to be housed by the municipal authorities instead of having real English homes of their own.

Major LANE-FOX: I beg to second the Motion.
I should like to add my testimony to that of my hon. and gallant Friend as to the value of this Clause. I am informed that the Government intend to accept it, at any rate in principle. I thank them very much for doing so, because I am certain it will be a, very considerable inducement to the building of houses, especially in country districts, where it is private enterprise which will do a very large portion of it.

The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Addison): This is a Clause to enable a person who is a life owner of land to give some of it for the purpose of building houses. I am always
glad of gifts in aid of housing, and with certain verbal alterations which would put the Clause into somewhat better shape, I shall be prepared to accept it. Substantially I should like to alter the wording of the first part of the Clause by leaving out the words down to "determinable," and inserting the words "power to make a grant in fee simple or absolutely, or a lease for any term of years for a nominal price or rent, or for less than the best price or rent which can be obtained." This would enable a person, not with standing the covenants on which the land was held, to give these small plots of land for the purpose of housing. I should also propose to add at the end of the Section, "with the sanction of the Court" in the case of larger proposals.

Sir F. LOWE: I consider this new Clause is entirely against the general rules of law. It enables a tenant for life to give away land without consulting in any way the interests of those who are coming after him. Under the present Settled Land Acts, if a tenant for life does sell land, he has to sell it for a consideration, and the consideration has to be invested for the benefit of those who come after him. This Clause would enable the tenant for life to absolutely ignore those who come after him, and to give away land that belongs to them, which seems quite contrary to the principles of English law. I am very much surprised my hon. and gallant Friends who have moved and seconded this Amendment, and who are always ready to observe the rules applying to landed property, should have moved a Clause of this kind. I agree with most of what they have said as to the necessity, the wisdom, and the desirability of providing houses, but I do not see how this Clause assists that in any way. If a man is the absolute owner of land he can give it away or do what he likes with it, but if he is the tenant for life there are other people's interests as well as his to be considered, and I cannot see why he should be empowered to give away those interests. For that reason I shall strongly oppose this Clause, and I hope the Government will not accept it.

Mr. CAIRNS: What I want is something which we have been fighting for in Committee. As a representative of a mining district, I know that we have an evil in force there which I might call the tied-house system. I am against any land being sold, and I am against any house
being sold. There are houses in the colliery districts, and men have to go to them against their will. If you get employment in the colliery you have to live in the colliery house. This Clause will open the door to the perpetuation of the tied-houses system, and I hope the President of the Local Government Board will not accept it. Our men are crying out against it. I am against utility societies having land. I think the land ought not to be sold. The land of this country will not increase——

Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid the hon. Member must have misinterpreted the meaning of this proposal. This is a proposal whereby a person who is not in the ordinary way able to part with land of which he is the tenant for life will be able to give a certain amount of the land for the purpose of housing, but it shall not be more than two acres in extent. I am proposing to add "without the consent of the Court," in order to safeguard the point that has been raised by the hon. Member (Sir F. Lowe). It is not a question of selling houses; it is a question of somebody being able to give away land.

Mr. CAIRNS: I am not in favour of land being sold or given away, because I want the local authorities to keep it. I am afraid it will get into the hands of employers who are the owners of collieries or other works, and they will use the houses against the worker. Therefore, I hope the House will not accept this Amendment.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not know whether any assurance from me will assist my hon. Friend, but I do most emphatically assure him that this Clause, with the Amendments which are suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, are entirely harmless from his point of view. Indeed, they are very advantageous to local authorities, who may be themselves the owner of land some of which this Clause proposes to enable the owner for life to give for housing.

Mr. CAIRNS: If the local authority will get the land it is all right.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I do not quite see the point of the proviso that "No more than two acres shall be granted in any one parish." I can understand if that means that not more than two acres are to be granted by any one tenant for life in one
parish, but there may be a great number of tenants for life living in one parish, and this Clause would limit the land to be given to only two acres per parish.

Dr. ADDISON: The two acres is not all the land which any parish can get. The two acres refers to what an owner may do with the land in his possession in any one parish.

Mr. McNEILL: If that is so, the proviso does not carry out what is intended. If the Clause is carried at present and any one parish had received a gift of two acres that would preclude any other owner in the same parish from giving any more land. The Clause says that only two acres in a parish can be so given, and it does not stipulate that that is the full amount that can be given by one owner.

Mr. RAWLINSON: The intention is that where there is a settled estate the life owner of that estate shall not grant more than two acres, but that is not carried out. You wish to protect the reversionary interest against the tenant for life, giving away more than two acres; but if such a person has property in two parishes you do not restrict him to two acres; he could give two acres in each parish, which would mean four acres in all. The amount of land given would, of course, be multiplied by the number of parishes in which the estate is situated. This is only a question of a drafting Amendment, but it ought to be looked into before the Bill passes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a second time.

Amendments made: Leave out the word "Act" ["The Settled Land Act"], and insert the word "Acts."

After "1882" insert "1890."—[Dr. Addison.]

In paragraph (a) leave out the words,
sell or grant for such consideration in money, or otherwise as the person exercising the power may think fit, or for a nominal consideration or gratuitously any part or parts of the settled land, either in fee simple or for a term of years absolute or determinable.
and insert instead thereof the words,
make a grant in fee simple, or absolutely, or a lease for any term of years, for a nominal price or rent, or for less than the best price or rent which can be obtained.

Leave out the words "consideration in money," and insert instead thereof the words "price or rent."

Leave out the word "same" ["money for the same"] and insert instead thereof the word ''excess."—[Dr. Addition.]

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (a), to insert the words,
except under an Order of the Court.
The proviso will then read: "Provided that no more than two acres shall be granted as a site for such dwellings or gardens in any one parish without payment of the full price or rent for the excess, except under an Order of the Court." I will deal at a later stage with the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. McNeill) about more than one owner in one parish giving land.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I gather, with regard to the point raised by the hon. Member (Mr. McNeill), that the right hon. Gentleman is favourable to the idea of this restriction to not more than two acres in one parish being removed. I am not quite sure what he means when he says that he hopes to deal with it at a later stage. There is no further stage of this Bill in this House, and I should like him to give us a clear statement that in another place he will urge that some such Amendments that have been suggested shall be inserted.

Dr. ADDISON: The point was that not more than two acres could be given in any one parish, although you might have a considerable number of owners in that parish who would give two acres. That is a point which will be set right. I would not like to pledge myself to the words which will set the matter right, because I am advised that the point would not arise; but if the point does arise, and if the position is such under the Clause that not more than two acres can be given in any one parish, although a number of persons would give two acres, I will see that it is put right.

Mr. McNEILL: This Amendment does not deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University. I venture to suggest that his point and mine would be covered if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to leave out the words "in any one parish" and insert in their stead "by any one owner." That restricts each individual owner to two acres on his own property, whether in one parish or in another. If the right hon. Gentleman will make that Amendment, it would simplify the matter.

Sir T. WALTERS: The suggestion made by the hon. Member would have the effect of limiting the application of the Clause. We do not want to restrict an owner to giving two acres. If he owns land in twenty parishes we want him to be able to give land in all of them if necessary.

Dr. ADDISON: That is the reason why the words "in any one parish" are put in.

Mr. McNEILL: I have no wish to restrict him.

Sir G. YOUNGER: A good many owners own whole parishes, and would be restricted if we did not have words of this kind.

Mr. RAWLINSON: The Government tell me, possibly by inadvertence, that the object of the Government Amendment is to limit the power of a tenant for life in a settled state, and if a tenant for life in a settled estate wishes to dispose of more than two acres he must go to the Court for power. If that is the object it is not carried out by this as it stands, but it would be carried out by the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Augustine (Mr. McNeill). I agree that it would limit the power of the tenant for life, and I understand that the Government wish to do that, and that if the tenant for life of a settled estate wishes to give away more than two acres belonging to the tenant in tail he must get the leave of the Court. If, on the other hand, the tenant for life owns land in different parishes, and may give away as much as he likes, then it would be carried out by this proposal.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: May I explain my point. The Clause, as drafted and amended, would enable the tenant for life to give two acres in any parish in which he had land, but it would limit it to two acres unless the Court authorised him to give more. I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Member (Mr. Rawlinson), who is so learned in the law, say that the land did not belong to the tenant for life but to the tenant in tail. I cannot agree with that. The land belongs to the tenant for life as long as he lives, and then to the tenant in tail. One is the tenant in possession and the other the tenant in remainder. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham reprimanded me for moving a Clause which he says is giving away
the property of someone else, but the tenant for life is giving away something which belongs to him more than to anyone else. A tenant for life is already allowed to give away an acre of land which in the public interest he should give, and certainly in no circumstances is it more necessary that he should have that power than for the purposes of housing at the present time. As far as I know all owners of land in this country are most desirous that where necessary they should have that power

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) would come on as an amendment to Clause 10. The Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Waterloo Division of Lancashire (Mr. Buckley) will come on as an amendment to Clause 9. The Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) both extend the scope of the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Duty of Local Authority to Prepare Housing Schemes.)

(3)The Local Government Board may approve any such scheme or any part thereof without modification or subject to such modifications as they may think fit, and the scheme or part there of 'when so approved shall be binding on the local authority; but if the Board consider the scheme inadequate they may refuse to approve the scheme and require the authority to prepare and submit to them an adequate scheme within such time as they may fix, or they may approve the scheme subject to the condition that the authority prepare and submit to them a further scheme within such time as they may fix.

(4)If the Local Government Board consider as respects any local authority that an occasion for the preparation of a. new scheme has arisen they shall give notice to that effect to the local authority, and thereupon such an occasion shall be deemed to have arisen.

(5)Where the local authorities concerned or the Local Government Board are of opinion that a scheme should be made affecting the areas of two or more local authorities, such a scheme shall be prepared by the local authorities jointly and may provide for joint action being taken by those local authorities, and for the apportionment amongst the authorities of any expenses incurred in carrying the scheme into effect.

Sir M. CONWAY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "inadequate," to insert the words
or injurious to the natural beauties or architectural amenities of the neighbourhood.
I desire merely to get such assurance as the right hon. Gentleman is able to give me as to the attitude of the Local Government Board in this matter. The fear is very widely held, and finds expression in resolutions by the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and other societies concerned with the antiquities of the country, that an enormous number of cottages would be scattered about the country which would be eyesores. The desire of those who are interested in the preservation of the beauties of our country is that, in the first instance, our beautiful villages may not be spoiled; second, that great housing schemes in towns shall not have the effect of destroying, as in some cases they have destroyed in the past, architectural features which are of very great beauty and importance; third, that the fine old cottages which exist in all parts of the country in good repair shall not be knocked down and replaced by modern cottages of the kind which we have seen scattered about the country during the last thirty years, and which are perfect horrors. It is perfectly possible to restore almost any old cottage and make it habitable for many years to-come. Our country is very rich in old cottages, many of them unfortunately very far from being in a healthy condition for the purposes of habitation. I believe that as long as the present Administration is in power, and the present President of the Local Government Board in office, the amenities and beauties of our villages and towns will be preserved by the Local Government Board. But what I regret to notice is that there is no provision in the Bill for securing that protection in case of a change of spirit which might come over the Board in a few years to come.
I have heard it suggested that this housing scheme might be regarded as a great war memorial. I believe it to be an unsuitable form of national war memorial, but there is nothing more certain than that if we could scatter over the country as a result of this housing activity a number of really well-built, well-designed cottages-and small dwellings of all sorts, if they were as built as 500 years ago they used to be built, structures built to last century after century, if they were beautiful in themselves, quite simple, but well-proportioned and well-designed, in years to come the cottages built in the years immediately following the War would be remembered, and people seeing what buildings they were, might look back to the persons of
to-day, who are busy with these great schemes of reconstruction, and regard these houses as a monument of ourselves and a credit to our generation. I have brought this forward to get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman as to his action in the matter.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: I think that the hon. Gentleman is well acquainted with the number of the architects and others who are, I am glad to say, helping us in inspections and in the consideration of plans and sites; and I can assure him that, if it is possible even more completely than he himself desires to avoid monuments of ugliness for the people of this country who will come after us, those who are dealing with these questions and these plans are most anxious to secure this result, and secure that these new houses shall be good to look at, with open spaces and green fields, and so on. We prescribe in the regulations, subject to proper modification of plans where it may be necessary, that as a general rule in rural districts there should not be more than eight houses to the acre and in urban districts not more than twelve. I am exceedingly anxious that the places shall be good to look at as well as to live in. I am sure we shall bear the hon. Member's remarks in mind, but I hope he will not ask us to put the words into the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because you would then have to secure that every individual scheme, for whatever purpose it was intended, would have to be scrutinised and dealt with from this point of view as well as from any other. It is quite impossible to lay down in a Bill anything that is a matter of taste. You cannot do it; you can only do your best. You cannot ask us to work up some instruction which would be variously interpreted according to the taste of those interpreting it. The only way in which you can do this kind of thing is to get people working at these schemes who are the best you can get for the completion of well-constructed buildings. That is what we have done. We have a good general instruction as to the kind of thing they are to aim at. I hope we shall not have any statutory instructions as to the taste they are to display or individually to possess, otherwise my responsibility might not be altogether a convenient one.
I think the hon. Member will be satisfied with the general assurance that we will do our very best in the matter.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I think my right hon. Friend has misconceived the purpose of the Amendment, which I rather regret he is not prepared to accept. My right hon. Friend said that if this Amendment was inserted in the Bill it would be an attempt to prescribe on questions of taste. It would not be anything of the sort. All that it would do would be to say that questions of taste were to be considered. It is quite true that there might be differences of opinion among those who consider them, but it would not lay down any canons of taste whatever. Another remark of my right hon. Friend convinced me that it is important that these words should be inserted. He says that if the words were put in, the effect would be that in the consideration of every scheme these aesthetical considerations would have to be taken into account. Of course they should be. I do not understand the objection of the President of the Local Government Board on that account. He objects to having the words inserted because they would make it necessary to take these matters into account.

Dr. ADDISON: May I interrupt? Inserted in this Clause the Amendment would make it read that the Board would have to consider whether a scheme was inadequate or injurious to the natural beauty or architectural amenities of a district and that, if so, the Board might refuse to approve the scheme. Does that not mean this, that in any case where we refuse to approve that scheme, we should have to give our reasons for considering that it was injurious to the natural beauties or architectoral amenities of the neighbourhood? How can you do that? We should have to be setting out a disputation on a work of art. We cannot do that with local authorities. It is not fair to place upon us the task of explaining to a local authority why, in our opinion, something or other interferes with the natural beauties or architectural amenities of a neighbourhood, and to have to do this as a statutory obligation.

Mr. McNEILL: If that is so, how does this matter stand? The right hon. Gentleman seems to me to have made the matter more difficult of understanding. He assured the hon. Member who moved the Amendment that the Local Government
Board are going to consider these questions. Supposing a scheme is put before the Local Government Board which is not in the ordinary sense of the word inadequate, which from every other point of view is adequate, but which does obviously and flagrantly sin against the question of taste, or is flagrantly out of touch with the prevailing architecture of the district—supposing that a scheme is before him, is he or is he not going to reject that scheme? According to what he has just said he does not feel that the Local Government Board will be competent to reject the scheme, or to justify their objection on the ground that it sins against an aesthetic canon. What is going to happen if he does take these matters into consideration? Is he going to reject such a scheme on a false ground; is he going to say that it is rejected because it is inadequate, whereas in the ordinary meaning of language it is not inadequate at all? I think it would be much more straightforward and satisfactory from every point of view if we put in these words and assumed the responsibility of considering and rejecting such schemes as sinned against these canons of taste, and boldly justified that course. That course would be satisfactory both from the point of view of those who are interested in the aesthetic side and from the point of view of Local Government Board responsibility. At the worst all the right hon. Gentleman could say is that the words are not necessary. I think there is another point of view from which they are very desirable, because we have—I do not say so much now, but for a long time past—the Government of the country and all public authorities have paid far too little regard to what has been regarded in the past as unpractical points of view. The importance of architectural or aesthetic beauty, the real importance, the moral importance of it, have not been sufficiently realised. Therefore it would be a very valuable thing, apart altogether from the actual controlling power put upon the completion of these particular schemes, to have in an Act of Parliament such a recognition by the Government and by Parliament that these matters are not unimportant. I remember that the late Professor Froude, dealing with past periods of our history, said that there was more valuable history gathered within the preambles of Acts of Parliament than in any other source. We do not go in much for preambles in these days, but perhaps
a future historian will find sources of history in unsuspected corners of Acts of Parliament, and it might be a monument to this present age, and to my right hon. Friend in particular, if it was possible to look back and say that in this great Act of Parliament, which he was instrumental in passing, even although the words may have no great executive effect, he was careful to see that the Government and Parliament had regard to the aesthetic and non-practical aspects of the case. From that point of view I hope he will accept the Amendment.

5.0 P.M

Sir T. WALTERS: I think we are going on an entirely false assumption. It appears from what the hon. Member says that unless some words are put in in this particular Clause, there would be no proper supervision of the architectural beauty of any housing scheme. That is certainly not the fact of the case. To insert the provision here, in my humble judgment, is to insert it in an entirely wrong place. You are dealing there with the question of schemes being adequate or inadequate to a district, and it is on the question of adequacy that you insert a few words—with which I entirely agree if they are in a proper context—which would lead to a series of instructions. This Clause is dealing with the adequacy or the inadequacy of schemes submitted by local authorities, and that is certainly not the place to insert any standard of taste or beauty. If it is thought desirable in any wise to give instruction to the Local Government Board, if you desire to put in some words that would direct particular attention to the necessity of artistic taste and architectural perfection—that may be a desirable thing to do, but certainly not here. At the next stage, when the plans are submitted and these plans are being dealt with by the Department before the sanction of the loan is obtained, then arises the question what size the premises should be, the number of houses per acre, the elevation, the use of local materials, and all that sort of thing, but that is an altogether different proposition from saying whether a scheme submitted is adequate or inadequate. Even if you have the words in the right place I am inclined to think that they will do more harm than good. There are all sorts of definitions to be taken into account. If you are going to say that when the Board come to consider a certain proposal, they shall have regard to this aspect, or that aspect, or the other aspect, you may omit certain important aspects,
and these would cease to be canons of judgment. It seems to me that if you give general instructions for the approval of plans, it is better than laying down a standard or specification. There should be no forgetfulness of the importance of proper architectural design, and care should be taken, for instance, that cottages of red brick should not be put down in the neighbourhood of one of those old magnificent cottages which my hon. Friend has in mind, and which are real things of beauty, and the local materials of which harmonise with the local surroundings. I think the likeliest way to secure the work of this Department being in the right direction is that the general taste of the community should insist, as well as the local authority, on high standards of beauty. We are always blaming architects, but they supply what the public wants, and the buildings, both of the present and the past, are only the natural expression of the standard of taste and the desires of the people in the age in which they were erected. If we are to get beautiful buildings, it will not be by putting definite and detailed instructions in the Bill, but by speeches like those of my hon. Friends who sympathise with these objects, and by doing our best to educate the community and stimulate the local authorities and make them realise that they should consider not only utility and economy, but beauty as well. I think that the speeches of the hon. Members who have supported this Clause ought to be widely-read and considered by all those who are engaged in preparing these schemes.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is this to be the attitude of this House with regard to a question of this kind, and when we express our aspirations for elegance and architectural beauty, are we to be told, as has been done by the last speaker, that that is to be carried out by appealing to the better sense of the community and by educating the people? When we are asked to take some definite steps to secure that the designs of these buildings should be submitted to a competent authority, and not approved until that authority found them satisfactory, we are told that we are indulging in vague generalities. This is going to be a great epoch-making Bill in regard to the aspect of our country. If it is not carried out with a due sense of the traditions and local surroundings of the different parts of the country, it will be an influence of the worst sort upon the
beauty of the country, and will, perhaps, destroy the whole plan of the country by the erection of some hideous monstrosities, and we are to continue to hope that people will be educated to a proper sense of the beautiful. Surely we have allowed in the past sufficient freedom of this sort with disastrous results. We know of the enormous evil that has been done by jerry builders and those who have erected houses which are a perpetual eyesore to successive generations. If we only calmly look around we will see close to Westminster Abbey and the Houses of Parliament the erection of a hideous edifice like Queen Anne's Mansions, which has done more harm to succeeding generations than many very notorious criminals, and has destroyed one of the most magnificent historic sites. It is a perpetual monument which we cannot get rid of, and source of trouble and irritation to everyone who has the slightest sense of beauty. We are told now that perhaps happy inspiration will come to the architect, and that there is no necessity to have the schemes approved by some competent authorities. When we say that before the schemes for these buildings are approved they should be judged by a competent authority, it is said that that is impossible and cannot be done. If that is the course we pursue we will go on in this House with the same idealistic aspirations and the same lack of practical means of enforcing them as we have done in the past, instead of making these new buildings a joy to the eye and a perpetual source of pleasure and education to the senses. I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment in order that we may avoid the erection of hideous monstrosities which will destroy all the surroundings, and will make the memory of this Bill a horror to all who wish to preserve the beauty of the country.

Major LANE-FOX: The hon. Member for Brightside (Sir T. Walters) says that this was the wrong place to insert this provision. I want to know where the right place is, and I desire to enter a protest against the attitude of the Government that they should have no sort of control over the architectural designs.

Dr. ADDISON: I did not say anything of the kind.

Major LANE-FOX: The right hon. Gentleman gave us the impression that the Local Government Board would not be able to refuse a scheme on any ground of that kind.

Dr. ADDISON dissented.

Major LANE-FOX: That is the impression created, and the right hon. Gentleman can remove it. I think that something of the kind which is proposed by this Clause should be adopted by the House. The local authorities have many sterling virtues, but this is a matter in which they should have the assistance of the Local Government Board. If a pro vision of this sort were inserted, it would make the local authority careful lest its scheme might be rejected. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his attitude and accept the suggestion which has been made.

Lieut.-Colonel WEIGALL: There may be some difficulty as to a definite provision, but we are all anxious that the aspirations of my hon. Friend who moved should be carried into practical effect. I am perfectly certain that if these houses are things of beauty they will have a tremendous effect on the life of the nation, and what I would suggest is this, that if the right hon. Gentleman cannot incorporate the proposal in his Bill he should agree to do so in the Regulations, or find some words—which would carry out the desire of my hon. Friend, whereby no scheme would go through until it had been approved by the Local Government Board after consideration of this aspect of it.

Dr. ADDISON: The earlier part of the Clause provides for the details of the scheme which refer to a statement as to the deficiency of housing in the district and a number of other matters, which have no relation to the beauty of the neighbourhood. When it comes to the question of the design of the houses, that is another matter. I welcome the suggestion of my hon. And gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Weigall) to deal with this matter in the Regulations. In our circular to the local authorities we have already referred to this question, and I see that the general feeling of the House is in favour of such action. I am sure the House does not want me to prescribe a standard which perhaps would be differed from in the near future. I shall issue a general instruction to the authorities concerned, embodying the general sense of the House upon this aspect of the matter, and pointing out that they should take these matters into account in the construction of the houses, and I hope my hon. Friends will be satisfied with that. If we were to Insert it in the Bill I am afraid we should
find ourselves in a difficulty as to setting up a standard of beauty. I would remind the House that we have got to do as well as we can and as men of common sense. I have employed a number of the best architects and town-planners that I could lay my hands on to advise on these schemes, and we will do our best. The standard of taste varies considerably. I have seen monuments which many people thought to be very beautiful, while many of us going along the streets would almost wish that somebody would come along with a little dynamite to blow them up. I cannot ask the House to prescribe a standard of beauty, but, as I have stated, in a general note to the local authorities I will ask them to take this aspect into account in considering the designs and plans.

Mr. RAWLINSON: The Amendment has not been on the Paper, and therefore hon. Members may not quite have understood what it was, but the words are: "or injurious to the natural beauties or architectural amenities of the neighbourhood." It is not, therefore, a question of the houses themselves, but of the position where the houses are being put up. The scheme in Clause 2 is to set out the localities in which land is to be acquired, and the Amendment is meant, not to deal with the planning of the houses or the, class of houses, but with the place where they are to be put up. As I understand it, it is necessary to provide that houses should not be put up in such places as parts of the Lake District, where it might be considered injurious to the neighbourhood to have buildings of any kind. Therefore, what the Amendment means is that when the schemes come before the Local Government Board to put up a number of buildings in a particular part of the Lake District, say, or round about Stonehenge, as the Bill stands at present all the Board has to inquire into is whether the scheme is adequate to the housing needs of the neighbourhood, and the Amendment is simply to put it in the power of the Local Government Board to consider the artistic aspect of the case as well. The advantage of putting it into the Bill is the pedantic one that it is highly desirable to put in the Bill what is meant, so that people will not have later on to turn up the Official Report to find out what the then President of the Local Government Board
said on the matter. There is nothing in the Bill to show a local authority that they ought to consider the amenities of the neighbourhood before they make a scheme, and if I was a local authority and had a perfectly adequate and useful site to place the people upon, I think I might consider myself fully justified in neglecting the question of the beauty of the district. If it is the opinion of the House that the effect of this Amendment ought to be in the Bill somewhere, surely it ought to be at this particular place, because then it is a direction, first, to the local authorities that in drawing up a scheme they are to bear the artistic aspect in mind, and, secondly, that when it comes before the Local Government Board it shall be a direction to them to consider that particular aspect at that particular time. Speaking as a general rule, it is desirable to have a Clause in an Act, and not to leave it to a mere departmental memo.

Sir T. WALTERS: I did not intend to convey any suggestion that we should not have a thing in the Act, if we meant to have it at all. But I suggested that it would be as well if Amendments that are proposed bore some sort of relation to the general framework of the Clause.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I was very disappointed that the President of the Local Government Board was so willing to accept the weaker proposal of satisfying us by a regulation instead of putting it in the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) has given us the strongest possible reasons for putting the Amendment in the Bill, because he has shown that without it there is no obligation on any local authority to consider the amenities of the neighbourhood, but I go further. I have not seen the actual words of the Amendment, but I think the hon. and learned Member was wrong in suggesting that the Amendment does not also cover the question of the individual appearance of the houses. Where I differed from the hon. Member for Brightside (Sir T. Walters) was in considering that this is in the wrong place. My hon. Friend seemed to take a materialistic view, which is just the one we want to combat by the Amendment. He thinks that the adequacy of a scheme has nothing to do with its beauty, but I strongly disagree with him. Clause 2 says a scheme is to specify
the approximate number and the nature of the houses, and, according to my hon. Friend, the nature of the houses, I suppose, would mean cubic space, number of rooms, and so forth. But I think it should also include the aesthetic side of the scheme in my view, if you leave this question to be dealt with by regulation, it is an advertisement to all the world that that aspect of the thing is much less important than the question of bricks, tiles, slates, etc. You cannot have an adequate house which is an ugly one, and a house which sins against the aesthetic canons is inadequate really to house a family in proper and congenial surroundings. It is because I think it is so important that the aesthetic and material aspect should be regarded as of equal importance that I do not want to separate them in the way the hon. Member suggests.

Sir F. LOWE: On a point of Order, Sir. How often has an hon. Member the right to speak on the Report stage? We have had two long speeches from my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. R. McNeill), and if we go on at this rate we shall never get through the Report stage at all. I think hon. Members ought to adhere to the rule.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): It was my inadvertence, but, having only just come into the Chair, I did not notice that the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. McNeill) had already made a speech on this Amendment. Hon. Members are only entitled to speak once on the Report stage, with the exception of the Mover of the Amendment or the person in charge of the Bill.

Major WARD-JACKSON: I think some definite statement should be made in this Clause which would reconcile the opinion of those in this House and outside who are in favour of having artistic architectural buildings erected under the new scheme. There has been a considerable amount of talk about the education of the people and that they should be brought up to a standard of education which would enable them to have an influence on the houses that are built, but the housing question is one of the greatest urgency, and there is no shadow of doubt that numbers of them all over the country will be erected in the greatest possible haste. That will inevitably lead, in some places, to houses being erected close to the edges of roads and in all sorts of positions where we do not want houses at all, and it would
also cause houses to be built which would have no architectural beauty. The Government say they will be prepared to put some vague terms in their instructions to the local authorities which will influence them, they hope, in causing good architectural houses to be built, and they say they will teach the local authorities how this should be done. I cannot see the Government teaching anybody on the subject of artistic value at the present moment. They will not even open the exhibitions or the galleries for the public, and they know what the habits of local authorities are when it comes to erecting houses in their district. In one of the towns of the county which I have the honour to represent, opposite a beautiful old county hall, is erected the most abominable building which can possibly be viewed anywhere in the country, and it is a source of pride to the local authorities in that town, a good deal more than the ancient county hall is, which has stood there for hundreds of years' That sort of thing is something which we are all hoping to avoid in the future. We have not got time to educate everybody to the niceties of architecture, and, therefore, it is up to the Department to use the powers which they have of obtaining the proper advice and enforcing that schemes which are brought forward by local authorities should be carried out in the most artistic way possible. Therefore, I cannot but think that the only way to do it is to pin the Government down, if possible, to something definite.

Mr. HOGGE: I think the House has discussed this question of aesthetic buildings quite long enough. There is an absence of houses in the country. There are thousands of people at the present moment who cannot get a roof over their heads, and the first thing this House has got to do is to create houses. After that we can discuss the question of whether they are artistic houses or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too late!"] It is not too late. The people who want to get under those roofs do not mind whether they are aesthetic or not so long as there is a roof there. There are thousands of people tramping our streets to-day, and among them demobilised men who have fought for us, who cannot get house-room for their wives and families. The question of aestheticism in house building is one which this House would never leave to the Local Government Board, and certainly
not to a professor of medicine like my right hon. Friend opposite, because, after all, the question of aestheticism in house building is a different question all over the country. While my right hon. Friend might know exactly what would suit the people of London, I am sure he would be the last person in the world to venture an opinion as to what might suit Glasgow or Inverness or Thurso. It is obvious that we cannot have a uniform standard, and therefore I think we are wasting the time of the House in going into a question which must wait on the other question of urgency.

Mr. STEWART: I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should be so fond of ugly houses. It is just as easy to build pretty houses as ugly ones, and people can live and sleep in pretty houses just as well as in the houses he wishes to put up. I thoroughly sympathise with the Minister that this interesting point should be discussed on a manuscript Amendment, but, knowing the spirit which the President of the Local Government Board has shown throughout the whole of this Bill, I feel sure he himself is in agreement with the Mover, and that he would rather have artistic and pretty houses than houses of another sort. I only hope he has not dug himself in on a question of principle, and refused absolutely and finally to consent to these words, which seem to be quite harmless. If he cannot make up his mind at the present moment to retreat from the position ho has taken up, perhaps he will think it over, and use another place to put in words which cannot possibly do any harm, and may possibly do good.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 3.—(Power to Authorise County Council to Act in Place of Local Authority.)

(1)Where the Local Government Board are satisfied that a local authority have failed or are not prepared to fulfil their obligations as to the preparation of schemes under this Act, or their obligations under any such scheme, or that for any other reason it is desirable that any such obligation should be performed by the county council instead of by the local authority, the Board, after considering the circumstances of the case and giving the local authority and the county council an opportunity of being heard, may, if they think fit, by order, transfer to the council of the county in which the district of the local authority is comprised the obligation to pre pare and carry out a scheme, or to carry out in whole or in part the provisions of a scheme pre pared by the local authority.

(2)Where the Board make an order under this Section the order may, for the purpose of
enabling the county council to give effect to the order, apply any of the provisions of the Housing Acts or Section sixty-three of the Local Government Act,1894, with such modifications and adaptations as appear necessary or expedient.

Colonel BURN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words
or that for any other reason it is desirable that any such obligation should be performed by the county council instead of by the local authority.
I move this Amendment on behalf of the urban district councils and the rural district concils, because they object to the powers regarding housing being transferred to the county council unless they fail to fulfil their obligations under the Act, or they are not prepared to fulfil their obligations. The provision, which I move to delete, would enable the Local Government Board to transfer the powers of the council of a county borough or of a populous urban district to the county council, if for any reason the Local Government Board thought it desirable that the obligations should be transferred. In the Debate upstairs in Committee this question was touched upon by my right hon. Friend, and I suppose the reply that was given then will be given again—that it is not intended to transfer this power; but the fact is that it is in the scheme, and there is no guarantee that it will not be used. In the Land Settlement Bill, Clause 11, there is a provision that will enable the county council to erect dwelling-houses on land acquired by them under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act. and if this Bill passes there would seem to be no need for the words, to which the local authorities object, in Clause 3. It was my right hon. Friend who suggested that those words were absolutely necessary. He paid great tribute to the work that had been done by some of the urban district councils and the rural district councils. I think the majority of them are very keen on this scheme, and are doing all in their power to make it work, and work in the right way. I do not think, therefore, that these words are necessary, and I hope my right hon. Friend will agree to their being cut out.

Lieut.-Colonel WEIGALL: I beg to second the Amendment on behalf of the Urban District Councils' Association and the Rural District Councils' Association. They look on this Amendment as one of vital interest to themselves. There are only really two main points of argument. One is the broad point that you are going
to allow the small local authorities under the Bill to be placed in the position, without their making any default, that the Local Government Board can, if it thinks fit, go clean over their heads and go to the larger authority of the county council. I cannot help feeling that that cannot make for good. After all, the life of the country depends to a very large extent on the life of the county, and the life of the county on the life of the city. We have heard a tremendous lot during the last few months of the desire of the Government to stimulate and galvanise the local authorities into a keener sense of their obligations. As one who has been on every local authority in my part of the world for eighteen years, I cannot help feeling that if you ask us now to go down—I am speaking now of the purely rural authorities—and ask those authorities to place themselves in this position, it is certain to take the gilt off the gingerbread so far as this Bill is concerned. No doubt my right hon. Friend will turn round and say, "It is all perfectly true. I realise the importance of these local authorities. I know I cannot get on without them, but in this case I want to retain in my hands the power to use county councils for rural housing schemes, because I am not certain that I shall get the work through." But I do not want him to stabilise and standardise this power as he does in the Clause. As on the last Amendment I made so bold as to suggest a halfway house, may I suggest a half-way house on this? It is that the local authority should have the power of being heard by the Local Government Board simultaneously with the county council. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is in the Bill!"] If it is in the Bill, that is all I have to say.

Dr. ADDISON: The hon. and gallant Member surmised accurately that I feel myself unable to accept this Amendment. We had a discussion on this point in Committee upstairs, and practically, I think, the Committee were unanimous as to the form of the Bill as it stands. It will be seen in Clause 3 that in these cases the local authority has an opportunity of being heard, if it desires to be heard, in respect of any Order we may make under this Section. My hon. and gallant Friend knows perfectly well that if any local authority wants to get on with the business we are going to support them, but, at the same time, we must be free. If people
display a disinclination to get on with the business, or if there are other good reasons relevant to the proper provision of houses, I think we ought to have power of this kind. In the acquisition of land it would be more convenient, for various reasons, perhaps, to use a larger authority; but there are various cases, apart altogether from the case of the provision of cottage gardens under the Board of Agriculture scheme, where the county council authority is the authority, and, therefore, it would be necessary to utilise that machinery, and these words are expressly put in for that purpose. There are other contingencies. We had a case, which came up a few days ago at the Board, where there was a proposal, in connection with a very big industrial undertaking, to erect a large number of houses in the area of a quite impecunious rural authority who were utterly unable to tackle a proposition of that kind, and which it would be unreasonable to ask them to do. In a case of that kind we wish to exercise such a discretion. We want to help people to get on with the work, but, for all that, I am quite sure the general sense of the Committee was—and I hope that of the House on Report will be—that we ought not to spend too much time in hearing explanations, but that we should have power to get on with the business as speedily as possible. This Amendment and the next two Amendments on the Paper are really on the same subject. I hope, therefore, that we may get rid of them in this one discussion. I am sure we spent long enough in discussing the last manuscript Amendment. There is an Amendment further on the Paper which relates to the imposition of the charge on a small authority where we call upon a county council or other larger authority to do the work. That, I think, is a fair proposal, and I should be prepared to accept that Amendment. But this Amendment cuts out the whole principle, which I regard as very vital, and I am sorry to say I cannot accept it.

Mr. ROWLANDS: I am very sorry the President cannot accept this Amendment. I do not think he quite realises the great feeling there is in connection with our local authorities in this matter. I had a similar Amendment down; and I do not know anyone more desirous, or keen about this matter, or who feels more than I do that the work should be got on with.
We are quite prepared to give the Local Government Board power to deal with any local authority that defaults. I personally supported that principle in the Select Committee on Housing in 1908. These words, to which objection is taken, takes the power out of the hands of, not only the small rural authority but also the urban councils, many of which are as important to-day as are our municipal corporations. They are that to all intents and purposes, although they have not been turned into municipal corporations. They feel that if you take from them the power to carry out the work they desire without being in default, that you are taking away from them their local authority in a way which is totally unnecessary. You have these huge bodies fully prepared to carry out the work. My contention is: leaving out the small rural authorities, in many cases which I have in my mind's eye, North and South of this great city, are urban councils which are much more conversant with the requirements of their districts than is a county council of the towns in a county. The county council does not go to work in these industrial parts. I was most astounded at the illustration which the President of the Local Government Board gave in regard to the rural councils, where he mentioned that an industry was going to be put down in a certain district, and those concerned wanted to build a number of houses there. That illustration is not quite fair. The arguments are clear. You have a new situation created by a new industry. The large town could tackle it. A rural council is unable to cope with the situation. It is a case of involuntary default, for the rural council might be wishful to grapple with the difficulty. While I am strongly in favour of my right hon. Friend's measure and everything being done to deal with defaulting local authorities, I do feel there is rather a tendency to ignore the largo local authorities, which, I think, is not a course beneficial to the life of the country. The great thing that has been done in this country has been the evolution of municipal life. To take away from it would be detrimental to the well-being of the country. Therefore I deeply regret that the Minister in charge cannot see his way to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words:
Provided that the local authority shall be entitled to appeal to the Local Government Board if, in their opinion, the amount of the expenses which the county council require them to defray or propose to charge against their district is excessive or unreasonable, or against any refusal by a county council to make an order under the said Section sixty-three vesting in the local authority all or any of the powers, duties, property, debts, and liabilities of the county council in relation to the powers transferred to them, and upon any such appeal the Board may make such order as they may deem just, and an order so made shall be binding on the county council and the local authority.
I move this Amendment in the absence of my hon. Friend (Sir J. Harmood-Banner). I think the right hon. Gentleman said he would accept this.

Mr. REMER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: As I suggested a few minutes ago, I shall accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Inspection by County Medical Officer of Health.)

Where a representation is made to the Local Government Board as respects any county district that the local authority have failed to exercise their powers under Part I. or Part II. of the principal Act, the Board may direct the county council to instruct the medical officer of health of the county to inspect such district and to make a report to the Board as to the exercise of the powers aforesaid by the local authority.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move, after the word "made" ["where a representation is made"], to insert the words
by any person being a local government elector.
The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that any local government elector can make a representation to the Local Government Board in regard to the condemnation of a house which ought to have been condemned and has not been condemned by the local medical officer of health. The Clause as it came from Committee was only inserted, I think, on the last day as a new Clause. This is one of the most important additions we have made to the Bill. Hitherto one of the great difficulties in administering Parts I. and II. of the principal Act has been the difficulty of getting the local medical officer of health to exercise his powers fully and properly. I need not go into the reasons for that, except to say it is due very largely
to the fact that the local medical officer of health of the smaller authorities is a private practitioner in the district. It is regrettable that this has been so in the past. One would wish that some day it might be altered. As the proposal is in the Bill anybody can make a representation to the Local Government Board in respect to any house which in their opinion ought to be condemned as no longer fit for human habitation. The Amendment tends to improve the machinery. What I want to make perfectly clear by this Amendment is that any Local Government Board elector or any ratepayer can set this machinery in motion, and write to the Local Government Board. If the matter is left to a representation without saying from whom the representation should come, practically nobody in the Kingdom will know their powers under this Clause of the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman desires to improve the Clause. I do not think this Amendment would do so. It would have quite a contrary effect. The Clause says
Where a representation is made to the Local Government Board…
It may be by anyone, by a Local Government Board elector, by the Member of Parliament, by the medical officer of health, or anyone else. If the words of my hon. and gallant Friend were accepted nobody would be entitled to make a representation unless he were a local government elector. That is not, I think, what the Amendment is intended to mean at all. I hope with this explanation the Amendment will not be pressed.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Would the right hon. Gentleman prefer to alter the Amendment and say "a representation made by any person"? I only want to make the matter quite clear.

Dr. ADDISON: The representation must be made by some individual or by some organisation—it might be a society, or a church.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words
and if on receipt of such report the Board are of opinion that the local authority have been negligent in exercising their powers under Part I. or Part II. of the principal Act, the
Board may authorise the county council to act in place of the local authority, and any expenses so arising to the county council shall be recoverable from the local authority concerned.
This second Amendment is to make clear what course of action shall follow the representation. I want to strengthen the Clause, if I can, so as to make clear what really follows an inspection by the Local Government Board or by the county medical officer.

Sir PETER GRIGGS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: I do not think that an Amendment is necessary here. The matter is already covered by the words of Clause 5, which gives us the power to act in default of the local authority under Parts I. and II. of the principal Act, for the reasons set out. The provisions of Clause 5 cover everything, except appeals against Closing Orders, which are specifically dealt with in Section 10 of the Act of 1909. Every possible contingency which the hon. and gallant Gentleman's words are intended to include are included in one or other of the Sub-sections I have just mentioned. I assure him that is so, and I hope, therefore, he will not press his Amendment.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Under that assurance, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 7.—(Power to Recoup Losses).

(1) If it appears to the Local Government Board that the carrying out by a local authority, or by a county council to whom the powers of a local authority have been transferred under this Act, of any scheme approved under Section one of this Act, or the carrying out of a re-housing scheme in connection with a scheme made under Part I. or Part II. of the principal Act, including the acquisition, clearance, and development of land included in the re-housing scheme, or the carrying out of any scheme approved by the Board for the provision of houses for persons in the employment of or paid by a county council, has resulted or is likely to result in a loss, the Board shall, if the scheme is carried out within such period as may be specified by the Board with the consent of the Treasury, pay or undertake to pay to the local authority or county council out of moneys provided by "Parliament such part of the loss as may be determined to be so payable under Regulations made by the Board with the approval of the Treasury," subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by those Regulations.

Such Regulations shall provide that the amount of any annual payment to be made under this Section shall—

(a) in the case of a scheme carried out by a local authority, be determined on the basis of the estimated annual loss resulting from the carrying out of any scheme or schemes to which this Section applies, subject to the deduction there from of a sum not exceeding the estimated annual produce of a rate of one penny in the pound levied in the area chargeable with the expenses of such scheme or schemes; and
(b) in the case of a scheme for the provision of houses for persons in the employment of or paid by a county council, be an amount equivalent to thirty per centum of the annual loan charges as calculated in accordance with the Regulations on the total capital expenditure incurred by the county council for the purposes of the scheme:

Provided that the Regulations shall include provisions—

(i) for the reduction of the amount of the annual payment in the event of a failure on the part of the local authority or county council to secure due economy in the carrying out of a scheme or otherwise to comply with the conditions prescribed by the Regulations;
(ii) for the determination of the manner in which the produce of a rate of one penny in the pound shall be estimated; and
(iii) for any adjustment which may be necessary in consequence of any difference between the estimated annual produce and the actual produce of the said rate of one penny in the pound;
(iv) every Regulation so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented by either House, within twenty-one days from the date on which that House has sat next after any such Regulation is laid before it, praying that the Regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Regulation, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there under.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "rehousing" ["included in the rehousing-scheme"], and to insert instead thereof the words "last mentioned."
In explaining the object of this Amendment I would at the same time explain the next Amendment which stands on the Paper as consequential. In Committee upstairs my right hon. Friend was asked whether the financial assistance to be given would include the acquisition of land needed for rehousing, and the clearing away of slums. He always intended that the financial assistance should be available for these purposes. In view, however, of the doubt expressed these words are proposed. It is only one addition, but a very important one which my right hon. Friend proposes, and that is that the financial assistance shall only be given if the acquisition of
land for the clearance of slums embodied in a scheme under Part I. or II. is accompanied by rehousing, whether on the site itself or on another site. It is very important that that should be borne in mind. The Government will give financial assistance for those schemes under Parts I. and II., provided that the people displaced are rehoused whether on the actual site or on another site. There will be general agreement with the intention and policy of the Government in proposing this, I think.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after he word "scheme" ["in the rehousing scheme"], insert the words
and whether the rehousing will be effected on the area included in that scheme or elsewhere."—[Dr. A. Dixon.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have a manuscript Amendment here in the name of the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) to alter Sub-section (1). I desire to ask him if his proposal, as I understand it to do, will involve any charge upon the Exchequer?

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; it would.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Then it cannot be dealt with on the Report stage.

Major ASTOR: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "period," to insert the words
after the passing of this Act.
6.0 P.M.
This Amendment is to make it quite clear that financial assistance will be given only to the schemes which are carried out within a reasonable period after the passing of this Bill. This money will be available for schemes which are submitted within a limited time after the passing of this Bill.

Amendment agreed to

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Board" ["such period as may be specified by the Board"], to insert the words
and if the rents to be charged have been approved by the Board.
It appears to me that there is no provision made as to definite responsibility for the fixing of the rent. In such a case where the State is going to incur probably an enormous loss, I think there should be some very definite statement in
the Bill as to who is responsible for fixing the initial rents for two reasons. Firstly, for the protection of the State and the tax payer; and secondly, for the protection of the tenant who is going to inhabit the house. It is quite true that in Clause 1, Sub-section (3), the Local Government Board has to approve the scheme as to its adequacy, but I do not know whether that provision is intended to cover approval of the rent, but if it is it is only an approval based on an estimate, and of course the rent to be a just one should be based upon the actual cost which can only be known when the scheme is complete. In the course of building next year there may be a great change in the cost, which may go up or down, and each would affect the rent. Seeing that we are bound to have an enormous loss which has got to be paid by the State, and that this loss depends wholly on the rent charged, it seems to me that the State, for its own protection, should decide what is to be the rent, and my Amendment provides for that. We have to remember in this House that we arc responsible for meeting all the loss, and we should have in the Bill something to ensure that our executive officer, the President of the Local Government Board, has the means of ultimately deciding what the rent is to be.
As regards my second reason, the protection of the tenant, I noticed in the "Times" the other day that in Manchester the corporation were proposing to put up houses and to charge the working classes rent 100 per cent. in excess of those they are now paying. I think such an increase is quite indefensible, and I do not suppose that any working man is prepared to pay 100 per cent. more than he is doing at the present time. Therefore, I say that the fixing of the rent must be very care-fully supervised, even in the interests of the working man. In the statement as to the financial assistance to local authorities, the President of the Local Government Board has laid down that the local authority first fixing the rents may have regard to the rents obtaining in the locality, and to the operation of the Increased Rent Restrictions Act and any Act amending it, and they are to have regard also to any superiority in the condition of the houses to be let.
I should like to take a small example to ascertain what that will amount to. For instance, if a man is to-day paying £20 a year for his house, when the Rent Restric-
tions Act lapses that will become £22, because the landlords are allowed an additional 10 per cent. Supposing that man goes into a house 20 per cent. better than the one he is living in now, which is really the object of the Bill. It is only fair to suppose the rent will advance in the same proportion, and that means that his rent becomes £22, plus £4 8s.—that is, £26 8s. per annum. Is the working man prepared to go even to that extent? That is a matter which the Local Government Board ought to be able to determine, and even that is only about half the real economic rent, and therefore I suggest that a fair and reasonable rent for a house 20 per cent. better than the one the man is now living in will, in a year's time, be about £27, or an increase of 35 per cent. I should be glad if the Government would express some opinion as to whether they think that is a reasonable or just rent for the working man to pay. I think it is most essential that the Local Government Board should decide this point, otherwise we might have a 100 per cent. rise put on every house in Manchester, and that is quite out of the question. I think this House should really fix the responsibility on the President of the Local Government Board of ultimately deciding what the rent shall be.

Mr. INSKIP: I beg to second the Amendment.

Major ASTOR: I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member did not let me have a copy of this Amendment, which has not been put down on the Paper.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: As a Scottish Member I am not noticed on the Committee.

Major ASTOR: But this Bill has been printed for many days, and if my hon. Friend had put down his Amendment it would have enabled the Government to deal with it more satisfactorily. I am only trying to explain my difficulty in dealing with an Amendment which I have not seen before. I am not certain whether the hon. Member desires to have a flat rate for the whole of the country.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: No.

Major ASTOR: Does he mean that the rent to be charged for each individual house is to be approved by the Local Government Board?

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I think every scheme should bear upon it the rent proposed upon the estimate, and when the scheme is completed an amended rent, if necessary, should be put forward by the Local Government Board, and the onus of deciding the rent should lie with that Board.

Major ASTOR: Perhaps the easiest way to deal with this Amendment would be by reminding the House of the general principle upon which the Government propose to give assistance to local authorities. We have taken into consideration the very difficult and vexed question as to what rent should be charged at the initiation, and what should be charged during different years for the houses which are going to be provided by the local authority. The reason the Government have come to the assistance of the local authorities is duo to the very high cost of building on account of the War. It is quite obvious it would be impossible to ask the occupiers of the half a million new houses which it is proposed to erect to pay an economic rent based on the present cost of production, and what we are trying to do is to have an economic rent based on the cost of erecting houses in 1927, charged as from that date. Very briefly, that is what we are aiming at. The period will finish by 1927, and that will be seven years, and we have based our authority on the principle that there is to be a provisional estimate made now and a provisional balance sheet, and the Treasury subsidy for the next seven years will be fixed on that basis.
If rents go up during this provisional period from now to 1927, the local authorities will get the advantage of that increase in rent. There will be another balance-sheet made in 1927. I need not go into all the circumstances and all the details that have to be taken into consideration, such as the amount based upon an economic rent and based on the then cost of building a suitable house. We anticipate that there will be a deficit in 1927 when you make up this balance-sheet, and that deficiency will be the amount of the Treasury subsidy to the rest of the loan period. In the opinion of the Treasury that is the best way of dealing with this very difficult situation. We do not know what the rents are going to be twenty or thirty years hence. In the opinion of the Local Government Board and of the Treasury—and I think, on the whole, that opinion is shared by the local authorities—
it would be a good thing to make a final balance-sheet in 1927, and to arrange once and for all the amount of the Treasury subsidy. That subsidy then would be constant for the remainder of the loan period. That is what we are aiming at. We are aiming at having an economic rate based upon the cost of building working-class houses in 1927.
The Mover of the Amendment raised the question as to what is to happen between now and then. The amount of the Government assistance, or the fact that the Government gives any assistance whatever, depends upon true economy in erection, upon good management, and upon fair and reasonable rents being charged. If the hon. and gallant Member will read through the very full, the detailed, and somewhat complicated Regulations which have been issued as a White Paper, setting out very clearly the financial assistance to local authorities which the Government are proposing to give, he will find that the Government expect the local authorities to manage their housing schemes in a business like manner in the national interest, showing due economy and proper management. Reference to these Regulations was put in this Clause, Sub-section (1), in Committee upstairs, to meet the very natural desire of many hon. Members that the House should have an opportunity of agreeing to the main points that should be contained in the Regulations which the Local Government Board were going to issue hon. Members will find, according to the first proviso,
That the Regulations shall include provisions (i) for the reduction of the amount of the annual payment in the event of a failure on the part of the local authority or county council to secure due economy in the carrying out of a scheme or otherwise to comply with the conditions prescribed by the Regulations.
The Committee upstairs agreed with the contention of the Government that it would be unwise to try and put into the Act everything contained in the Regulations—there are something like twelve pages of Regulations—and that Parliamentary control would be adequately safeguarded if this proviso of Sub-section(1) of Clause 7 were included in the Bill, setting out the sort of points that ought to be contained in the Regulations, and yet giving the Department a certain scope to carry out what everybody agreed should be carried out. It would be inconsistent with the Government policy to accept the Amendment, which, as I have said, I have
not had an opportunity of seeing, but which I think I understand. I think that all the hon. Member desires is contained in our Regulations. We mean to keep a very close eye upon the balance-sheets of the local authorities, upon the cost of production, upon the cost of management, upon the amount allowed for depreciation, and upon the amount to be charged for rents. Hon. Members know that there is not to be a flat rent all through the country. There is to be a certain amount of variety. We must keep in close touch with the local authorities to stimulate them to charge a reasonable rent. You cannot base it upon the present cost of building, but we want them to work up to an economic rent in 1927, and we believe that the Regulations which we set out as the policy of the Board will enable the local authorities to carry out what I believe is the intention of the hon. Member and what is certainly the intention of the Government.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: The hon. and gallant Member is travelling rather wide of my point. I want to fix the responsibility for fixing the initial rent on the Local Government Board as a protection to the State and also to the working man.

Major ASTOR: In so far as the Local Government Board have to approve of the schemes, they will have responsibility, but I do not think it would be advisable or good management to expect the Local Government Board to fix exactly the initial rent in every case. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: But the Board will approve of it definitely or otherwise?

Mr. LAMBERT: Will my hon. and gallan Friend kindly inform me how the rents are to be fixed? Are they to be fixed by the local authority in conjunction with the Local Government Board, or how are they to be fixed? It is a matter of supreme importance. Obviously, it will be quite impossible within the next few years to charge an economic rent, but the process of estimating an economic rent and what is to be charged during this transitional period will be extremely difficult, and I would like the hon. and gallant Gentleman or the President of the Local Government Board to inform the House, and therefore the public, what authority will fix the rent, and upon what basis it will be fixed, in the next seven years.

Sir TUDOR WALTERS: I should like to submit one or two principles, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind in connection with this question of fixing the rent. I can illustrate my case better by taking the finances of the public utility societies, because there we have definite figures. If a public utility society gets to work, it will receive 75 per cent. loan and an annual contribution for the period of the loan representing 30 per. cent. of the entire interest and sinking fund charges. That means that a public utility society that builds houses within the next two years will receive a present of one-third of the cost of building. Why does the State do that? It is because it clearly recognises that one-third must be written off as a wasting asset. That leaves the society with the necessity to charge interest and sinking fund on two-thirds of the expenditure and not on the entire expenditure. We now come a step nearer to it. The people who promote this public utility society have to find 25 per cent. of the money, and they must recognise, at any rate for the next seven years, that they will get practically no return on that 25 per cent. If they get 2 per cent. or 2½ per cent. they will be very fortunate. When may they hope to get interest on their capital? They cannot expect to get any interest at first, because of the present high rate of money. It is no use talking about an economic rent if you are going to lend money at 5½per cent. You will only have an economic rent when you get your money down to 4 per cent. That is the real element that fixes the date. When the public utility society gets its money down from 5½ to 4 per cent., it will then begin to get a modest return upon the 25 per cent. of the capital which it finds. During the seven years, presumably, there will be some modest and fair increase of rents in the country generally and that increase of vent, plus the saving by the fall of interest charge from 5½per cent. to 4 per cent., should bring the public utility society to a 4 per cent. return on their money. When you have written off one-third of your expenditure as waste of assets, when you have got your general rate of interest in the country down to 4 per cent., and when you have reasonably and slightly increased your rent, then you will get to an economic rent of about 4 per cent. upon two-thirds of your total expenditure.
The local authorities must reason on the same principles, and the Local Government Board, in approving the rent, should
look at it in the same way. You start practically with the rent as fixed by the Rents Restriction Act, plus the extra value of the house that is now provided compared with the accommodation of an old house, you have to write off at least one-third of the cost of building, and you recognise that you cannot hope to pay more than about 4 per cent. on the balance that is left out of the rent which you receive. You may expect during the seven years to get your rent so increased as to finally arrive at something like 4 per cent. upon two-thirds of the expenditure. On lines something like that the rents will have to be fixed, and finally an economic rent will be secure. May I utter one word of warning. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will eliminate altogether this idea of charging the rent with sinking fund. When fixing the rent that a man should pay, you may take the interest on the cost of the house, but you have no right to take the sinking fund. If you charge a man in his rent both interest and sinking fund, he ought to own the house at the end of the period. The only basis on which local authorities can reckon the rent that they are to charge, is the interest on the cost of the building and not the sinking fund. They start with that, they write off one-third of the cost at once, they aim at a return which represents about 4 per cent. and then ultimately, within the space of seven years, with a cheaper rate of money and a slight increase of rent, they ought to get at an economic rent based upon two-thirds of the cost.

Mr. LORDEN: I am almost obsessed with the difficulties of assessing the amount of rent that is to be charged. I cannot see any daylight at all. We have heard from the last speaker that there are going to be further difficulties, and he suggests that you must not put the sinking fund on to the rent. If that is so, then in 1927 there is going to be an enormous increase to the liability of the Treasury. The Mover of this Amendment suggested that there is going to be an increase of 10 per cent. according to the Rents Restriction Act, and 20 percent. for the advantage of the new house. That is only 30 per cent. The public utility societies are only to have a present, or are only going to write off 30 per cent., and the houses are going to cost 120 per cent. more to build. I am very much alarmed at the amount of money that has to be found and the wasteful nature of the
scheme. You do not bring the local authorities or the public utility societies into partnership. You let them go on in their own way, and, after they have brought in a 1d. rate, the Treasury has to find the whole of the balance. That is a very wasteful way of dealing with the matter. It is impossible at present for anybody to say what rents can be levied. It depends very largely upon the wages that are paid, and the tendency is not to go down. It is still rising. The output is very much smaller than in prewar days, and that is where the great increase is coming in. It is not the rise in wages, but it is the reduction in the amount of output, which is only about 25 per cent. of what it was before the War. The hon. Gentleman opposite, therefore, who brought up this Amendment has raised a point which requires a great deal of consideration. It is, in fact, the crux of the whole matter. What rents are you going to fix? What is the amount that the Government or the Treasury have to find? I am alarmed at the idea, and I was alarmed about it when we were in Committee. Since then I have had time to study the matter further, and I am of opinion that we have got into a most extraordinary position. The Treasury have said that they are ready to come in on certain conditions, and it is clear that the loss will fall upon the Treasury. I would seriously suggest to the President of the Local Government Board that he is up against a most awkward position. I quite admit my question cannot be answered at once, but the position is one which will have to be faced sooner or later.

Major ASTOR: I will send the Mover of the Amendment a copy of the White Paper.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I have it.

Major ASTOR: I think it gives a fuller explanation of the financial assistance which the Local Government Board proposes to give to the authorities, and the hon. and gallant Member will find that it sets out a perfectly sound principle.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Which I quoted.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member has anything to say, he should rise.

Major ASTOR: I suggest that the principle on which the Government propose to deal with this matter is clearly set out in the White Paper. The local authority,
in first fixing the rent under the scheme, is to have regard to the rent obtaining in the locality for working-class houses and to the mortgage interest. Provision is there made, too, for the fact that the House will probably be a better house, and that the rents will vary in different areas. The local authority will have to submit a balance-sheet showing the rents which they propose to charge, and that, I think, meats the point which my hon. and gallant Friend has in his mind.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Has the Local Government Board power to approve the rent to be charged by the local authorities?

Major ASTOR: The local authorities must produce a balance-sheet. That will obviously show the amounts to be received in the way of rents, and it therefore really means that the Local Government Board will have to approve the rent.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next two Amendments I do not quite understand. How can you have an estimated and an actual loss?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There is a charge on the Exchequer under the Bill as it stands. It is a quite unknown charge, and my Amendment is devoted to trying to make the loss to the Exchequer less.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Members Amendment is to leave out the word "annual" and to insert the words "in each year." What I would like to know is, what is the difference?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think I can explain it. Instead of the word "annual" I want in the first place to put in the word "actual." Then there is a consequential Amendment later on to put in the words "in each year." I think I have made the object quite clear.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is either "estimated" or "actual." Which is it?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Under the Regulations the loss is estimated at the beginning of a certain long period, and that loss is a stereotyped loss. It is supposed to hold good for the rest of the period in each year. My Amendment is directed to doing away with the stereotyped loss and to make it vary each year, according to the excess of the expenditure
over the actual receipts. There is, I submit, a great difference between the two.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am advised that this will increase the charge. Perhaps the hon. Member will devote his observations to that point.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, a), to leave out the word "annual" ["estimated annual loss"], and to insert instead thereof the word "actual."
I submit that it will not increase the charge at all. My Amendment is really directed to decreasing the loss to the Exchequer. The amount of that loss is not known under the Bill as it stands. I agree that nobody can tell exactly what the loss will be under my Amendment, but in all probability it will be much less than under the Bill. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary just now that the Regulations are very complicated. I quite agree with him. I think they are the most complicated Regulations I have ever read. It is really a vicious system of legislation under which, when Bills are brought in. the whole machinery of the Bill and the whole essence of the Bill—the financial provisions—are put into Regulations and not into the body of the Bill. I am not going to be guilty of reading the Regulations to the House—I have been guilty of many things, I admit. Still, without reading those Regulations, it is almost impossible to explain what the financial provisions are. But I will try and give the gist of them. Until 1920 we are to have a transitional period, and at the beginning of that transitional period the loss which the Exchequer is going to pay by way of subsidy is the excess of expenditure over revenue plus the produce of a 1d. rate. That is not going to change year by year. The loss is going to be estimated at the beginning of the transitional period. It will be exactly the same stereotyped loss until 1927, and when that has arrived the same principle is to be carried on until 2000 A.D. In 1927 the new Estimate will come out, and the loss which the Exchequer is going to bear under Regulations is to be the excess of the local authority's expenditure over the revenue plus the produce of a 1d. rate in the first year of the Estimate, and the loss is to be stereotyped and to be paid year after
year for a period of seventy-three years until 2000 A.D. Suppose the expenditure over revenue was estimated at £16,000, and the 1d, rate brought in £5,000. The. actual loss which the Exchequer would have to meet would be £10,000 in the first year, and until 2000 A.D. £10,000 will have to be paid to the local authority, although, as a matter of fact, the actual loss to the local authority might in the long run only amount to £50 a year. I challenge the Government to deny that statement. Surely it would be much better that the local authority should know what it is going to receive. It may lose. Its loss may be larger than the estimated loss in the first year of the period, but, on the other hand, the Exchequer may lose because the local authority's loss may be much less than the estimated loss in the first year. Surely it would be much better for the taxpayers to know what their liabilities are going to be, and much better for the local authority to know what their liabilities will be. It is an absolutely rotten system of finance. Nobody knows what it really means, and I believe that if the Government had put this proposal into the body of their Bill it would never have had a chance of getting through Committee, and it would have had a much smaller chance of passing this House

Major BARNES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House will agree, after hearing the hon. Member himself, that he has confessed there may be a very considerable difference between the estimated loss and the actual loss. Who is going to bear that? Is it not the Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Not necessarily. In some cases the Exchequer will gain greatly by my Amendment.

Major ASTOR: My hon. Friend raised this point upstairs, and my recollection is that the. majority of the Committee agreed with the policy of the Government, and therefore my hon. Friend did not press his Amendment. He has now raised the same point again. I am quite aware he states that it is probable he will reduce the Treasury Grant. That, no doubt, is his intention and hope, but it may not work out as he proposes, and it may result in an increased charge on the Treasury. He hopes it may be to the advantage of the Treasury, but it may operate in a contrary
direction, and then, if it does involve an increased charge, I assume the Amendment would be out of order. Perhaps I may be allowed to deal very briefly with one or two of the points if the Amendment is not ruled out of order.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask my hon. Friend one question? I take it he does not deny that the loss is stereotyped in the first year, and that it is to run in a stereotyped fashion for seventy-three years.

Major ASTOR: I explained very carefully to my hon. Friend upstairs that the Government subsidy was to be fixed on two occasions, firstly, at the beginning of the period, and once again in 1927, at the beginning of the remaining period. If this Amendment were carried there would be a variation, which my hon. Friend thinks would operate in favour of the Treasury. But it might not operate in that direction, and so I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether we are now to discuss the merits of the case?

Mr. SPEAKER: After hearing what has been said, and with the little knowledge that I have, it seems to me that the loss might fall on the Exchequer or it might not. There seems to be a possibility that it may, and if that is so, that would increase the charge, and therefore the matter could not be raised on Report.

Mr. R. McNEILL: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker, for the information of Members of the House? If the Government bring in a scheme of finance which is criticised, and if they show that a proposal made by a Member of this House could conceivably under some possible contingency result ultimately in increasing the charge, does that mean that in those circumstances such an Amendment would be out of order? Is it not necessary to show that at all events there is at least a reasonable probability that such an increase will result? Otherwise, would not such a ruling operate to prevent criticism of almost any financial scheme that the Government could introduce?

Mr. SPEAKER: These matters cannot be discussed on Report. That is the important point. All financial matters must be discussed in Committee. In Committee it is open to hon. Members to move any Amendments they like dealing with financial matters, provided that they do not exceed the limit of the Financial Resolution; but when it comes to the Report
stage, which is taken by the House as a whole, the House does not discuss and cannot discuss questions of finance except for the purpose of limiting the expenditure. It cannot under any circumstances increase it.

Mr. McNEILL: Is it necessary that that rule should obtain in all its stringency under the new Rules of Procedure? Under those Rules a great majority of Members of the House have no opportunity of hearing any expression of opinion in the Committee rooms upstairs, and this Report stage is really the only opportunity which the great majority of the House have of representing the views of their constituents on these Bills. Under these circumstances, would it not be possible, Mr. Speaker, for you to exercise a certain latitude in the administration of the rule, to enable those who have not been in the Committee upstairs to represent what views they may hold on these questions?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not disposed to accept any relaxation of any rule which would lead to greater expenditure. The Rules of the House are designed for purposes of economy, and I am sure that at the present moment economy is more essential than it has ever been before. Therefore, it is more necessary than ever, it seems to me, to guard the rule now.

Mr. LORDEN: If the local authorities are limited to 1d. rate, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, how is it possible to increase the Treasury contribution?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not ask that of me. We are dealing with a point of Order now.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I entirely submit to your ruling. Could I move my Amendment if I add at the end a proviso making it quite clear that the loss to the Exchequer should not be greater than it would be under the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: I should like to see the words.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like to move a consequential Amendment at the end of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1), providing that in no case shall the Treasury have to pay more than the statutory rate estimated at the commencement of the transitional period. I think that would cover the point.

Mr. SPEAKER: It would not do to insert a proviso of that sort at the end. The House might accept the hon. Member's first Amendment and reject the second, and we should then be in a worse state than ever.

Mr. McNEILL: Would it be in order for my hon. Friend or some other hon. Member to vary the Amendment so that it would read:
On the basis of the estimated annual loss or the actual loss in any given year, whichever is the smaller sum in any year.

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member let mo have those words?

Dr. ADDISON: On a point of Order. I do not intervene in any way for the purpose of restricting discussion. I think that the more discussion there is the better. But so far as I can appreciate my hon. Friend's point, it is to secure by some machinery or other that something which in the nature of the case is variable shall be fixed.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No.

Dr. ADDISON: The matter stands related to the proceeds of a penny rate, but the proceeds of a penny rate may vary as the rateable value of the district may rise or fall. If the proceeds from a penny rate decline, then unless the scheme is to be bankrupt, somebody has to make up the balance, and that somebody, under the scheme before the House, is the Treasury. If the proceeds of a penny; rate increase, in consequence of an increase in the rateable value of the district, then the contribution of the Treasury, pro tanto, is so much less. That is part of the scheme. It appears to me, therefore, that unless the House is to discuss the financial provision ab initio, with the idea of providing a fixed sum—which it did not decide to do, and we discussed it at great length both on the Resolution and in Committee—unless we decided to lay down a fixed sum, it must be a sum that is variable, and if it is a sum that is variable, and the Treasury is a contributing party, it is just as likely that the Treasury may have to contribute more as less. That appears to me to be an essential accompaniment of what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve, and I suggest that he is trying to achieve what is impossible.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is quite clear that some Members of the House, at any rate, are not in possession of the
gist of these Regulations. Would it be possible to re-commit the Bill in respect of this particular Clause, because my right hon. Friend, if I may say so with great respect, really missed my point? The produce of a penny rate is variable under the Regulations, but he has stereotyped the loss. That is my point.

Dr. ADDISON: No. I am sorry to interrupt, but that is exactly what we do not, do. The loss is stereotyped except as regards the proceeds of a penny rate, but that is the very point. The exception of the proceeds of the penny rate is the material point that varies, and our contribution is fixed except with regard to that.

Mr. LOCKER - LAMPSON: Supposing that the produce of the penny rate went up by £1,000, and supposing that the State subsidy was £10,000, it would only be reduced by £1,000; it would be, say, £9,000. But the excess of expenditure might have gone down to £50.

Dr. ADDISON: No; it would be the contribution to the loss. If there were no loss there would be no contribution.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have it in, the right hon. Gentleman's own words in the Regulations. I do not know whether I am in order here, Mr. Speaker, but I think it would be most advisable to recommit the Bill. My right hon. Friend was not right in saying that we had a discussion on the Resolution. There was no discussion on the Resolution. The first time it was discussed was in Committee upstairs, and therefore the House has never discussed this financial point. I therefore beg to move that this financial Clause be recommitted.

Mr. SPEAKER: That cannot be done now. You cannot re-commit in the middle of a Bill, but must wait until the proper time comes. The next Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington also increases the charge—
At end of Sub-section (1, b), insert,
(c) in the case of any scheme (other than a scheme under paragraph (b) of this Sub-section) carried out by the London County Council or by the council in conjunction with a Metropolitan borough council or with the Common Council of the City of London or in respect of any scheme under which expenses have been incurred by the council be an amount not less than seventy-five per cent. of the estimated annual loss incurred by such council in connection with any such scheme or schemes.

Major GRAY: Do I gather, Mr. Speaker, that you are quite clear that this does increase the charge? Of course, I accept your ruling without hesitation, but I understood that on the Second Reading the Government declared that the London County Council would be quite as well off under the one scheme as under the other. If that be the view held, then it seems to me that if that council prefers the one scheme, it is now open to the Treasury to modify their view and say that it will necessarily cost more. I would further submit that under the financial Clause as granted the charge upon the Treasury would be practically unlimited. Beyond the loss of the penny rate the Treasury bears the charge. There is no limit to that, and it seems, therefore, to me that any alternative scheme could not possibly increase that which was already unlimited.

Mr. SPEAKER: That would depend upon whether the amount of the penny rate was 25 per cent. or more. If the amount of the penny rate in London were always 26 per cent., and the State always had to pay the 75 per cent., there would be no change. But the hon. and gallant Member cannot say for certain whether whether the amount of a penny rate in London would be 25 per cent. or not. It may be more or it may be less, and in the latter ease there is a possibility of an increased charge coming upon the public.

CLAUSE 8.—(Borrowing Powers of County Councils in connection with the Housing of their Employés.)

(1)Where money is borrowed by a county council for the purpose of the provision of houses for persons in the employment of or paid by the council, or of acquiring land for such houses, the maximum period for repayment shall be eighty years, and as respects money so borrowed eighty years shall be substituted for thirty years in Subsection (5) of Section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1888.

(2)When a loan is made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to a county council for any such purposes as aforesaid, it shall be made on the same terms and conditions as a loan to a local authority for the purposes of the Housing Acts.

(3)A county council shall have power and shall be deemed always to have had power to provide houses for persons in the employment of or paid by the council.

Sir F. BLAKE: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words
and for that purpose a county council may be authorised to acquire land in like manner as a local authority may be authorised to acquire land for the purpose of Part III. of the present Act.
7.0 P.M.
This is the logical conclusion of 'the acceptance by the Government of the words that a county council shall be deemed always to have had power to provide houses for persons in the employment of the council. The Government accepted that in Committee. It is said that a county council has power now to acquire land, but, as far as my experience goes, the process is painful, prolonged, and expensive, and what we ask here is that we should have had the same facilities for acquiring land, when it is required for the purpose set out in the Sub-section, and the same facilities and the same machinery as local authorities have.

Dr. ADDISON: I am glad to accept the Amendment. It meets an oversight in the Bill. A county council is not, in the ordinary way, a housing authority. We may declare it to be a housing authority for the purpose of housing their employés or contributing towards their housing, but at present the powers they possess otherwise than conferred upon them in this Bill do not entitle them to acquire and hold land for that purpose. It is clearly necessary that they should have houses for the people to live in; therefore I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Provisions as to Assessment of Compensation.)

(1) Where land included in any scheme made under Part I. or Part II. of the principal Act (other than land included in such a scheme only for the purpose of making the scheme efficient and not on account of the sanitary condition of the premises there on or of those premises being dangerous or prejudicial to health) is acquired compulsorily, the compensation to be paid for the land, including any buildings thereon, shall bathe value at the time the valuation is made of the land as a site cleared of buildings and available for development in accordance with the requirements of the building by-laws for the time being in force in the district:

Provided that if the scheme requires that provision shall be made for the re-housing of persons of the working classes on the land or part thereof when cleared the compensation payable to all persons interested in any land included in the scheme (other than as aforesaid) for their respective interests therein shall be reduced by an amount ascertained in accordance with the rules set forth in the First Schelule to this Act.

Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (I), after the word "made" ["any scheme made under Part I."], to insert the words,
or to be made.
This is a drafting Amendment, the object being to make it clear that the Clause applies to the compulsory acquisition of land whether the scheme has been made before or after the passing of the present Bill.

Dr. ADDISON: I am glad to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, after the word "cleared" ["or part thereof when cleared"], to insert the words,
or the land or part thereof when cleared be laid out as an open space.
I arranged on Report to bring up words to secure that land obtained in connection with property cleared because the houses were condemned or were unsatisfactory should be obtained on the basis set out in this Clause. It really amounts to this, that in the case of this condemned property the land is obtained on the basis of its commercial value, or in so far as it is required for purposes of housing the basis of valuation is governed by that purpose. That means that the price in such cases would be less than the price for ordinary commercial purposes. The Committee pointed out that the provision of the necessary space round the houses built upon the site cleared was, of course, a necessary part of the amenities of the houses and was not a commercial purpose in the ordinary sense, so that the land required for open spaces round the houses provided on the site ought to be acquired on the same basis as that used for the houses themselves. This Amendment includes the provision of open spaces on the common basis of acquisition which is applicable to the portion of the land required for rehousing.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether the scheme also includes the cost of the laying out and construction of public streets or roads and other matters ancillary or incidental to the provision of houses' I am told there is great anxiety felt as to whether the terms of the Bill include that or not. If my right hon. Friend will give an assurance on the point it will be a great satisfaction.

Dr. ADDISON: The scheme in this particular case, the scheme of rehousing or the clearance of these sites,
includes roads and so forth, but it does not include transport facilities for long distances to and fro. That would fall to another charge. It includes roads and so forth which are a part of a general housing scheme.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Power of Entry on Land Compulsorily Acquired.)

(2) Where a local authority has agreed to purchase land for the purpose of Part III. of the principal Act, then at any time after such agreement has been made, the local authority may, after giving not less than fourteen days' notice to the occupier, being a tenant at will or from year to year, of the land, enter on and take possession of the land without previous consent, but subject to the payment of the like compensation to such occupier as if the entry had been effected under compulsory powers of purchase, and under and after compliance with Sections eighty-four to ninety of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "Act" ["Part III. of the principal Act"], to insert the words
and the land is in the possession of a person having no greater interest therein than as a tenant for a year or from year to year.
A considerable part of the land which will be required for housing lies on the outskirts of towns and villages and will be largely in the occupation of allotment-holders, market gardeners, and so forth. The object of the Clause is to secure to these yearly occupiers compensation under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. I have handed in a series of new Amendments in place of the one on the Paper.

Major LANE-FOX: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: I shall be glad to accept the Amendment. The Clause empowers an authority, where an Order has been made for the acquisition of land compulsorily, to take possession after giving fourteen days' notice, safeguarded as in the first portion of the Clause, and begin operations, the valuation and payment of compensation and so forth being determined afterwards. This is, of course, in order to save delay. It was pointed out in Committee that tenants at will have the whole of their goodwill, etc., disturbed by such entry and it ought to be made quite clear in the Bill that they should receive the proper compensation to which they are entitled. We were advised, as the Clause stood, that it was not clear whether they were really included and we propose now to make it quite clear. A farmer, for
instance, might have his whole livelihood taken away from him, he being only the tenant at will and not the owner. I will read the Clause as it would be if the series of Amendments were inserted:
Where a local authority has agreed to purchase land for the purpose of Part III. of the principal Act and the land is in possession of a person having no greater interest therein than as; a tenant for a year or from year to year, then at any time after such agreement has been made, the local authority may, after giving not less than fourteen days' notice to the occupier of the land, enter on and take possession of the land without previous consent, but subject to the payment to the occupier of the like compensation with such interest thereon as aforesaid, as if the local authority had been authorised to purchase the land compulsorily, and such occupier had in pursuance of such power been required to quit possession before the expiration of his term or interest in the land, but without the necessity of compliance with Sections 84 to 90 of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845.
It only sets out to make more clear what we have in the provision itself. We intended it to cover this class of tenant, but I was advised that the tenant at will or from year to year, might not clearly be entitled to what he really ought to have with respect to compensation, and in this redrafted form it makes it quite clear that It is this class of tenant, and that it is the compensation to which he is entitled which he will really get.

Mr. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why this distinction is drawn between a tenant from year to year and a tenant with a three- or five-year lease?

Dr. ADDISON: The other parties are treated for this purpose as owners, and would get the compensation which would be awarded to the owners.

Sir T. WALTERS: If I understand it correctly it applies only to land which has been acquired by agreement between the local authorities and the owners, not being the subject of any compulsory notification or anything of the kind. Having made an agreement with the owner, and having no agreement with the tenant, if they give the fourteen days' notice and take possession the unfortunate tenant has no right of recovery of compensation. He may have been an allotment-holder or a small holder. What happens in the case of a man who is not a tenant from year to year, who has a three-year's lease or a five-year's lease. Does that man receive any separate or special treatment, or when the local authority makes a bargain with the owner for purchasing without compul-
sion, do they at the same time make a bargain' respecting the payment to be made to the man who has it on a short lease? While you safeguard the position of a man who is tenant from year to year, and while clearly a man who has a long lease is virtually the owner and you can deal with him, I can conceive a case where a man who has three years' or two years' lease still to run being worsened and not bettered by this Amendment, unless there is some other Section under which he can claim. I have let some land for allotments on a seven-years' lease. Supposing I sell that land to a local authority, then it appears to me that this allotment society of working men who purchased the land on a seven-years' lease would have no ground for compensation.

Dr. ADDISON: They hold from year to year.

Sir T. WALTERS: I have let the land on a seven-years' lease.

Dr. ADDISON: The allotment-holders will hold it from the society from year to year.

Sir T. WALTERS: The people to whom I have let it are the trustees for the working men. The working men who formed the society have nominated certain members to sign the lease with myself for seven years. Supposing I sell that land?

Dr. ADDISON: They take the land from the trustees.

Sir T. WALTERS: The trustees are only the men appointed by the working men. The money required to lay out the gardens has been raised by the contributions of the working men themselves, and the fact that certain people signed the lease as trustees does not mean that the people for whom they signed will sustain no loss.

Dr. ADDISON: If they sustain loss they will get compensation.

Sir T. WALTERS: Under what Clause?

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: A leaseholder, whether his lease be for seven years or three years is an owner under the Bill, and would get compensation. A yearly tenant would not get compensation under the Bill without this Amendment when land was sold by voluntary agreement. It is thought that a very large proportion of the land acquired would be occupied by owners of that character.

Sir T. WALTERS: I am not satisfied. What is an owner under Clause 10? A man owns land and he lets it on short lease. The man who takes this land for seven, fourteen, or twenty-one years does not become the owner. It will be quite possible for local authorities to make a bargain with the owner of the land and then take possession, and then some poor unfortunate tenant who has a five or seven years' lease would, it appears to me, be left in the cold.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: They could only make a purchase from the owner, and his ownership is in reversion subject to the termination of that lease.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: Leave out the words
being the tenant at will or from year to year.

After the word "payment" ["subject to the payment"], insert the words
to the occupier.

Leave out the words
to such occupier as if the entry had been effected under compulsory powers of purchase, and under and after

and insert instead thereof the words
with such interest therein as aforesaid, as if the local authority had been authorised to purchase the land compulsorily, and such occupier had in pursuance of such power been required to quit possession before the expiration of his term of interest in the land and without the necessity of."—[Dr. Addison.]

Major BARNES: I beg to move, at the end, to insert as a new Sub-section,
For the period of seven years from the date of the passing of this Act where land included in any scheme made under Part III. of the principal Act is acquired compulsorily the compensation to be paid for the land shall be the value at the time the valuation is made, subject to a deduction of the amount of the increment value of the land as ascertained under the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, always providing that the amount of the increment value to be deducted shall not exceed the amount upon which Increment Value Duty has not been collected on any previous occasion.
The object of this Amendment is to ensure that where land is taken compulsorily the enhanced value due to war conditions or to the conditions that apply during this period of emergency is not going to pass into the pockets of the individual landowner. Whatever may be the method by which this object is intended to be achieved, and on which I think there is general sympathy in all parts of the House, no one has shown more sympathy
than that quarter of the House where the interests of landowners are the object of special regard. For instance, in speaking on the Land Facilities Bill, the hon. Member for Horncastle (Lieut.-Colonel Weigall), whose opinion on property carries a great weight with the Government, and very properly so, said:
We have to agree that if there is any value-attached to the land owing to the exigencies of war or to the action of the State, no individual ought to benefit by those exigencies or by that action
The hon. Member for Ripon (Major Wood)—and I know of no Member whose word deserves more serious attention or to whose words more weight should be given, speaking in the same Debate, said:
I can imagine nothing more disastrous for the country and for the landed interests than an impression, be it true or false, in the country that the thing was handicapped and prejudiced from the start by the fact that extortionate landowners were holding out for inflated values. I think the danger of people outside saying that landowners were holding out for exaggerated prices is so great that I am prepared in the general interests and well being of the country to make considerable sacrifices, and I speak as a landowner myself and one likely to be affected.
I think these words, coming from the hon. Member for Ripon must carry weight not only with the House but with the Government The hon. Member for Edisbury (Major Barnes) said:
I personally am a landowner and what little I possess comes from the land, and I say at once that I have no desire to get any inflated price from the War.
The hon. Member for Barkstone Ash (Major Lane-Fox) said, in words bearing a strong resemblance to those spoken by the hon. Member for Ripon:
I feel most strongly that it would be disastrous if inflated prices were demanded, and if inflated prices were paid. It is the duty of the State to find an equitable way out of this difficulty.
I press upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the last sentence: "It is the duty of the State to find an equitable way out of this difficulty." The hon. Member continued:
I suggest that even if it comes to the crucial process of cutting off from the price a certain mount, that would be a far better process than allowing it to be thought that inflated prices were being given, and the whole scheme was being endangered thereby.
The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) used these words:
The danger we have to guard against is the evil of excessive compensation being paid. Excessive compensation is a legacy from the past.
I have read these quotations for the purpose of assuring the right hon. Gentleman that his friendly reception, and, I hope, acceptance of this Amendment, would have the complete and entire sympathy of all parts of the House, and particularly that quarter from which opposition might have been expected. This Amendment, or one like it, with the exception of the time limit, was resisted by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee for two reasons. First, because he said a large number of these valuations had been officially completed, and, therefore, they had either to have a new Bill or begin the valuation over again. He also said that a great amount of the land that would have to be obtained is what is now used as agricultural land. If he observes the Amendment I am moving, it deals with increment value, and under Section 7 of the Finance Act agricultural land is not subject to increment value. Therefore, this Amendment would not affect the land which on the Committee stage he thought would be affected, and because of which he resisted the Amendment. He also said:
I must object to this being brought into the Bill because it is cutting right across our whole policy of having a general Bill applying to the acquisition of land for public purposes.
He was successful in resisting the Amendment, but there was a strong feeling amongst many members of the Committee to accept it, and they only let it go because they understood from the right hon. Gentleman that it was up against the Land Acquisition Bill and would be dealt with there. As proof of that I would quote the hon. Member for Lichfield:
I am in somewhat of a difficulty because I am in sympathy with this Amendment.
He voted against it on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman:
I think it, is a great pity that we cannot adopt something of this kind, so as to strengthen the hands of the right hon. Gentleman and that of the other members of the Government in dealing with the Acquisition of Land Bill, and I hope that if we do not take a vote it will be thoroughly understood that we are in favour of the principle.
This Amendment would probably have gone through Committee if it had not been for the assurance given that it would be dealt with in the Acquisition of Land Bill. Since this Amendment was before the Committee we have had the Acquisition of Land Bill taken in Committee, and I regret that I am not in a position to quote what was said there, because we have not an official report. However, Amendments
were introduced, one in particular by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), which had the object of dealing with this question of enhanced value, and in that Committee the Amendment was resisted by the Attorney-General on the ground that the Acquisition of Land Bill was not intended to deal with this question of enhanced value, but that it is simply intended to set up a basis of values which would be of use for normal times and not for such a period through which we are passing. So the position is, that we are rather tossed about. The right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Addison) tosses us over to the Acquisition of Land Bill. When we get there we are thrown back by the Attorney-General. So the two reasons for which this Amendment was resisted in Committee, have gone with the Board, and if the right hon. Gentleman is going to resist it here, he must find new arguments. If you want a provision, dealing with the enhanced value of land, you cannot get it in the Land Acquisition Bill. I quite agree with the Attorney-General in refusing it there. We must get it in this special emergency Bill. This only affects land that is taken compulsorily. That is land whose owner is opposing the public desire to use that land for public purposes. It does not affect the great volume of land that is taken by agreement. So if this is going to be opposed, it will not be on behalf of the general body of landowners, but on behalf of the few landowners who are hampering and holding up the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. By accepting this Amendment he will get an addition to his Bill which will help him very much.
This Amendment sets up no new machinery of any kind. The value is to be a value at the time a, valuation is made. If the Land Acquisition Bill becomes law, it will be a valuation under the terms of that measure. If that Bill be so unfortunate as not to become law, then the valuation will be a valuation under the Land Clauses Acts, or in any other way laid down by the Housing Acts. Let us assume that the Land Acquisition Bill becomes law, and a valuation is made. Take, for an illustration, a valuation made at £5,000 under the machinery of the Land Acquisition Act. That valuation is referred to the Inland Revenue, as it will be in any case. That is nothing new. Every purchase made under this Bill will be referred to the Inland Revenue as an occasion under the Finance Act. The Inland Revenue will have to consider if
there is increment value, so that step has to be taken in any case. All my Amendment suggests is that, when it has decided that there is increment value, that increment value shall be deducted from the value arrived at under the Land Acquisition Act, and the net value shall be the basis of the compensation. For instance, in this case, if the valuation was fixed at £5,000, and the Inland Revenue came to the conclusion that there was an increment value of £500, the price paid would be £4,500. It may be objected that the use of that machinery will cause delay, but there will not be any delay first in acquiring the land, because there would be power to take the land without public inquiry, and there would be no delay in getting the houses up. The only delay that could possibly take place will be delay in payment of compensation to the owner. That is not a very great matter. This is an owner who is resisting the acquisition of this land. The position in the case which I mention is that £4,500 would be paid to him at once. The only question that could be raised would be over the £500 which it is proposed should be deducted as increment value. The machinery is in existence under the Finance Act for determining whether it is a fair deduction or not. In any case, the House need not bestow a great deal of compassion on a landowner in that position, if he has to wait a little time for his money. Hundreds of thousands of people in this country who are wanting pensions and gratuities from the War Office are exposed to a great deal of delay. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is likely to base any case of the Amendment on that ground
If he accepts the Amendment, he will find it a means of speeding up his work, because the only people who will be penalised by it will be the people who are resisting the acquisition of land for this purpose. Any landowner who, in a reasonable spirit, effects an agreement will not come under the operations of this Clause. This Amendment is one of the greatest stimuli that can possibly be imagined to get housing schemes through. There are only three possible objections to this Amendment. First, it may be said that it is not proper to take this value. I cannot imagine how that can be suggested in face of the general expression of opinion from all parts of the House that
this is a value which it is essentially proper to take. Another objection may be that it is not workable, but the machinery is actually working. It may be working a little clumsily and a little creakily, but it is working, and it cannot be said that the proposal is not workable. The only thing that can be suggested is, that there is some better way of doing it than that which I suggest. I have been waiting to hear this better way suggested. I delayed putting down this Amendment, because I was in hopes that from that quarter of the House in which the speeches to which I have referred were made there would have come a Clause which would have given us what we want, or that the Government would have realised what public opinion demanded, and embodied some suck Amendment as this. But no alternative has been proposed. If the right hon. Gentleman has no alternative to put forward, the Government are faced with a serious situation on this point. We are entering upon tremendous expenditure. Millions of pounds are going out of the Treasury into the pockets of owners of real property in this country. It is common ground of agreement that there is a tremendous increase in the value of that property. The Government are pledged to see that no more than a fair price is paid, and that increment values do not go into the pockets of landowners in this country. Here is an Amendment which would give them a chance of reassuring the people of the country that they are taking this question into account.
This proposal is really the minimum step they can take. First of all, there is a time limit placed on it. It only applies for seven years during the period of emergency. It is not proposed to put it into, the Bill as perpetual legislation. Then all agricultural land is excluded from it, and all land taken by agreement is also-excluded. All that is left is the land taken by compulsion from those persons who are resisting the operation of great public measures which the Government bring forward. Even in the last case, it is not proposed to make a deduction of that part of increment value upon which duty has been paid. It may be said that the working of the Finance Act is going to be made the subject of inquiry, but it is not for the Government to prejudge that inquiry by refusing this Amendment. This Amendment only proposes to take-advantage of the existing law of the land
The acceptance of this Amendment is really a test of the sincerity of the Government in dealing with this great question of the land. Two or three nights ago the hon. Member for Upton (Sir E. Wild) addressed himself to the members of the Coalition. He felt it part of his duty to tell the Coalition what their duty was. His point was as to the attitude of the Coalition Liberals on the Preference proposals. Following his precedent, I may suggest to members of the Coalition that there are two sides of that matter, and that if on the one side there is an implication with regard to the Preference proposals of the Government, on the other side there is an implication with regard to the land proposals, and we who belong to the Liberal wing of the Coalition are looking to the Government to show their sincerity on this great question of the land, by inserting this Amendment, or something that will give us the same result. The right hon. Gentleman can give no greater re-assurance to the people of this country, that the land for which so much blood and treasure have been spent, is really looked upon as the land of the people, than the acceptance of this Amendment.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I had the honour to move an Amendment on somewhat similar lines in Committee. As the hon. Member (Major Barnes) has explained, it met with a large measure of support and would probably have met with almost unanimous support if the President of the Local Government Board had not pointed out that this was a matter which, in his opinion, could be dealt with more properly under the Land Acquisition Bill. I think that it was very largely for that reason that the Amendment was not carried. As the hon. Member has explained, the Land Acquisition Bill is not going to deal with this question of the increment value of the land. Therefore. I think it only right that this matter should be settled here and now. The question of housing was a question for the local authorities for many years. Housing Bill after Housing Bill has been introduced but as the President in introducing this particular measure pointed out, since 1890, when the first Housing Act was passed, only 18,000 have been built throughout the length and breadth of the land to meet the demand that was evidenced by these various proposals. Surely the reason is as everyone who has had experience on local authori-,
ties knows very well, every time the local authority is up against the cost of the land, and the price they have to pay for it. In 1914, the Land Inquiry Committee, which was set up by the present Prime Minister, reported—and I think that everybody with experience on local authorities will agree as to their finding—that the cost of acquiring land compulsorily by public bodies, is out of proportion to its real value, and acts as a heavy check on all improvement schemes. They gave a number of instances coming from various urban districts throughout the length and breadth of the land, illustrating the difficulties and delays encountered by local authorities, who wish to acquire land for housing and other purposes. These instances range over a large field.
I will give an illustration from my own town. I happen to have been a member of the local authority for the last sixteen years. We have been anxious to improve the health of our town by schemes of house building. We have failed entirely up to the present, almost entirely because of the cost of land. We have had to buy land for our schools. The education authority have naturally insisted that we should get land. I have taken out the figures for the last fifty years, and I find that the cost of that land for our public elementary and secondary schools has averaged over £1,600 an acre—land which one hundred years ago had not more than agricultural value. We are now carrying out various housing schemes, but they are hindered because we have to-day before our local authority offers of land at £1,000 an acre, the same land as is shown on the rate book as of a rateable value of £4. We want land for a cemetery. We were asked £500 an acre for it. The same land figures on the rate book at not more than £3 an acre. Talking about cemeteries reminds me of a classic illustration given by the Prime Minister himself about 1914. I would like to remind the House of it. He mentioned that there was a certain Welsh county council which desired land for a cemetery and a school, and the price they were asked for the land was £847 an acre, and that land was on the rate book at 40s. an acre. The Prime Minister asked, Why? That question has not been answered yet. We ask, especially to-day when the Prime Minister is at the head, why local authorities should pay over £1,000 an acre for land which is of merely
agricultural value and which is on their rate books at £4. The President was good enough to ask the Housing Commissioners to meet Members upstairs last week, and in two cases the Commissioners had to admit that schemes were held up because of the excessive price asked for land by certain landowners. I realise that these landlords are an exception, but it is the exception we have to deal with, and it is because of these exceptions that we require these extra powers. They will not affect those landowners who in many cases are generously giving land or selling it at less than they could get for it in the open market. We honour them for it. Those who are obdurate, and those who in my own town and in other parts of the country are asking excessive prices for land, the value of which has been created by the community, these new powers would affect. We appeal to the Government not to delay their housing scheme, not to burden us with heavy charges which under the Bill as it stands now might have to be faced.
This is a serious question. We were told by the President, in introducing this Bill, that there is a shortage of at least 500,000 houses. We know that according to instructions issued by the Local Government Board there will not be more than twelve or eighteen houses to the acre. Taking it at twelve to the acre, and the total as 500,000, it means that we require 40,000 acres of land before the present needs of the community are satisfied. What are we going to pay over and above what we ought to pay for these acres? Are we to pay on the basis mentioned by the Prime Minister—£847 an acre—or is it to be £1,600 an acre, the price which my own town has had to pay for building sites on the outskirts? It will probably not be as much as that, but even if the extra price that we have to pay is only £100 an acre, that would mean an extra cost to the Exchequer and the taxpayer of £4,000,000, or at higher rates it might go up even to £20,000,000—a subsidy to landlords, because we cannot get the land at a reasonable price. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day appealed to this House to exercise economy. I want to appeal to the President of the Local Government Board and to ask him that local authorities should be encouraged to exercise economy and acquire land at a reasonable price. The country should not be
burdened with this heavy charge of so many extra millions. I submit that the Bill as it stands, and the necessary financial procedure provide no incentive to local authorities to buy their land at economical prices. When they have spent the equivalent of a 1d. rate, the extra cost and expenses are found by the State. Practically all our towns will have to spend the equivalent of a 1d. rate. Once they have done that, it is immaterial to them, from the ratepayers' point of view, what the cost of their scheme is. It does not matter whether they spend £200, £400, £500, or £1,000 an acre. I do not want to indulge in any sentiment, but Members have said many times that nothing too much could be done for those who have served in the War. Are we to tell those men who were willing to take all risks, who were willing, if need be, to die for their wives and children and their country, that they arc not good enough to have land provided for houses worthy of the name? I am certain that the House does not mean that in any sense, but if we want to give the lie to such a charge, we must do it not only by lip service. I appeal to the Government to accept the Amendment and to give to local authorities powers whereby they can acquire land at reasonable prices, and thus not hold up schemes which are now being held up because of the absence of such provisions.

Mr. McNEILL: The hon. Member says that it is his desire and the desire of the House that land for the purposes of this Bill should be obtained at a reasonable price. Nobody is likely to disagree with him. But where the hon. Gentleman failed I think was that he did not show that the particular proposal in this Amendment was a reasonable method of arriving at a reasonable price for the land. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment in a very eloquent speech made a sort of appeal to Conservative Members of the Coalition, and pointed out, quite fairly, I think, that in a Coalition a certain amount of "give" may be expected from one wing in regard to a particular measure, and a similar "give" on the part of the other wing when other principles are being discussed, and he appealed to the Conservative Members of the Coalition that we, having got our way to some extent in relation to Preference, should be willing to make concessions on the land question and, therefore should be willing to support this Amendment. I quite agree with, the hon. Member in the principle of "Give
and take" which he laid down, and so far as I know the feelings of Conservative Members of the Coalition, I think, we are very ready, especially in relation to land legislation, to make very large concessions from the principles and views which we certainly held some years ago, and to recognise that under existing conditions arising out of the War, it is incumbent upon us to give way a good deal. The question is whether the particular proposal which is now made is a reasonable method of dealing with the particular necessity arising under this Bill. For myself I think it is the very worst possible way of arriving at a reasonable price for land when you take it compulsorily.
8.0 P.M.
I am quite prepared to vote for any proposal which is based on sound principles, that I cannot agree with some of the principles upon which the Mover of the Amendment based his appeal. He several times said—and his Seconder took the same view—that this Amendment might be supported as a sort of penal measure, because, it could only be applied to landlords who had resisted—and. his Seconder used some what similar phrases—recalcitrant landowners who are apparently, in their view, criminal or semi-criminal, or antisocial, to use a word less strong, and should, therefore, be dealt with by a strong hand. That is not my view. I am not a landowner and can, therefore, speak from a perfectly disinterested point of view. I do not agree that in every case we are entitled to assume that because a landowner has not by voluntary agreement parted with land which a local authority may want for a building scheme he is, therefore, in any sense a social criminal, or that a penal measure may justly be applied to him. I can quite imagine circumstances in which it is entirely reasonable for a landowner to say, "I am by no means opposed to the general policy of this Housing scheme; I am glad in many circumstances to assist it; but there are special grounds why I do not care that that particular parcel of land should reasonably be taken from me for this purpose." I can quite imagine in many cases a very reasonable opposition on that ground might be shown. The proposal is that the local authority, having been unable to obtain that particular land by agreement, is to use its compulsory powers. Surely, what the House wants is not a penal measure because an agreement has not been arrived at, but a reasonable method of
arriving at a fair and reasonable price. The hon. Member who proposed wants to do that by deducting from the valuation, at the time the land is taken, the amount of the increment value. The increment value is part and parcel of the value at the time the valuation is made. It is merely that portion of it which, in the opinion of the valuer, represents the increase upon what its value was at some former period. Although I have never been in favour of that method of taxation, and never thought it was a right and fair method of taxation, at all events, for the purpose of taxation, it is an intelligible method. It is quite intelligible to say, "You have got land which two years ago was worth a thousand pounds and is now worth twelve or fifteen hundred pounds, and we will put a tax upon the difference between those two figures." But although it is fair for taxation, if you are going to take the land to-day, on what ground of fairness can you adopt such a method and say, "We arc going to take land from somebody else which is worth fifteen hundred pounds, and we are going to take land from you which is worth fifteen hundred pounds, but when we investigate we find that your particular land, although it is now worth fifteen hundred pounds, was only worth twelve hundred or a thousand pounds some time ago, and we will make use of a Somerset House valuation made for other purposes and say that your land is not worth fifteen hundred pounds, but is only worth twelve hundred pounds"? Although I sympathise with the object of the hon. Members who have spoken in desiring to get land not only at a reasonable and fair but low price for the purpose of this housing scheme, I do say that the particular method suggested is absolutely arbitrary and is merely making use of what, I suppose, was a convenient bit of machinery which they found at hand and which was devised for a totally different purpose. That appears to me to be the very worst and most unfair method of arriving at what they desire. I do not know on what ground the President of the Local Government Board resisted this Amendment in Committee upstairs, but I hope, whatever his grounds were before, that he will see that this would be a most unfair method of arriving at a fair value and that he will resist the Amendment in this House also.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: We have arrived at a very important Amendment in connection with the Report stage of
this Bill, and once again there is a sharp dividing line. My hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken has taken up the traditional attitude of the party which he adorns with regard to this question. The simple issue is this, namely, whether land which is acquired for a public purpose, such as housing, shall be acquired at a price from which is deducted the value which has been placed on the land by the people themselves, and, as the Amendment provides, that method is to continue for a period of years. That is the issue, and the Prime Minister himself has from time to time given strong support to the proposal contained in the Amendment. I frankly admit the difficulty of dealing with the question of the price at which you are going to acquire land under this Bill, while there is another Bill before Committee upstairs which is after all the foundation of the machinery upon which yon are to acquire the land. I do not know whether it is in order or not, but I would remind the House of what happened upstairs with regard to the Acquisition of Land Bill. In that Committee I moved an Amendment on this very question, and that Amendment proposed that while adopting the phraseology of the Bill, which itself adopted the language of the Finance Act of 1910 with regard to an open market and willing seller, to add these words, as well as I can remember, that the basis upon which the valuer should move was that the value should be under assessment which had been made upon the claimant, either against his will or acquiesced in by him during the last three years. I think most Members who were associated with me considered that a very fair and reasonable proposal. What happened? The Attorney-General, and afterwards the Solicitor-General, and the members composed of the majority, refused that Amendment and we were left with the only chance of coming downstairs, when I have not the slightest doubt it will be beaten again. Therefore, all that is left to us is to take these Bills as they come, and to do what we can to remedy them from our point of view. I think it is quite a wrong way to legislate. What we ought to do really is to have that Bill, which is the basis, before us first. We are working. I agree, under abnormal conditions. I would take the opportunity to say this, with the pace at which these Bills are being driven through,
the strain imposed upon Members of the House has almost reached a breaking point. Legislation has necessarily to be done as quickly as possible, but it really is not well done. Let us look at the attendance here to-day on this very important measure. I do not blame anybody for not attending, as I believe it is quite impossible, as many Members are just tired out. Members were working all last week with two or three Committees sitting each day, and then had to come down to the grand inquest of the nation. You cannot go on doing it, and I am sure the vast majority of Members have very good excuses for not being here. To come back to the point of discussion, beaten on it upstairs, we come down here. I do not know what reply my right hon. Friend will give. He said previously that it had to be on the basis of the Acquisition of Land Bill. I hope my hon. Friend will press the matter to a Division and thus let us take all the opportunities we can of expressing our attitude with respect to the value at which land ought to be acquired.

Dr. ADDISON: I fail to understand this acid test of the Government's sincerity. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved, and the hon. Member who seconded, and who helped the Committee so much upstairs, suggested that unless we accepted this particular Amendment in their particular form, our pledges to the men who had fought for us were waste paper and that we are not going to carry them out. I respectfully demur to that proposition altogether. It was only a short time ago that the Member for Wood Green endeavoured to secure your ruling in favour of moving a reference back to Committee of Clause 7 on the ground that we were spending too much, or might be spending too much. I can well believe he might be disposed to make that the acid test of our sincerity. Nobody can say, whether they agree with this particular Amendment or not, that in this particular Bill, both financially and otherwise, we are not making the most drastic proposal in a very comprehensive and generous fashion. I decline altogether to accept the position that if I am not able to agree with my hon. Friends in this, that therefore in some way or another I am to be accused of not seeking to make good our pledges at the General Election. That does not follow at all, and the rest of the Bill bears abundant evidence to the contrary. I do not know to whom particularly the proposer referred when he spoke
of give and take. He wants, I think, a good deal of taking here. I do not pretend for a moment that there are not some things in our proposals which, if we were to hold by strict party lines, would not be different. It would be so with most of them I think, and everybody knows that, and there is nothing to be ashamed of in it. But look at Clause 9, which we have just passed, and which deals with the acquisition of land in slum areas. There has never been a more drastic piece of legislation in this or in any other country than Clause 9 of this Bill, which has gone through with no opposition or practically no opposition from anybody. The only change in the Bill that the House has made is that they have extended the basis for compensation to open spaces as well as to houses. That Clause is drastic enough for anybody. I only mention that as a general protest against any suggestion that I am in some way or another departing from pledges. I do not quite follow the arguments of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved. He said I put forward two reasons in Committee. I am afraid that in the passage of time I have forgotten the second one, but the first one was, that there was a Land Acquisition Bill before a Committee of the House.

Major BARNES: Perhaps I may refresh the right hon. Gentleman's memory. The first reason was, with regard to agricultural valuation, and the second was as to the Land Acquisition Bill.

Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) said that he raised this matter upstairs, and that he proposed to raise it on every appropriate occasion. I do not complain of that. I think the method we have adopted is the rational and sensible way of dealing with it, and I respectfully suggest that the rational way of dealing with land acquisition for public purposes is to deal with it as a whole. It therefore follows as a necessary conclusion that this Bill is not the proper place to deal with it. At the same time, I would like to examine this basis quite fairly, and I am very anxious that we should not pay a penny more for this land than we ought to.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman opposite said. I am sorry to say I have to. From the information given to me from the Commissioners just lately, for some reason or another, a considerable number of schemes are being held up on account of what are thought to be excessive demands or prices.
May I say parenthetically that I cannot imagine any more patriotic work that anybody can do than to help us to overcome these difficulties. I would call the attention of the House to the Clause we have just passed, which enables us, where an order is made, to acquire land, and when this becomes law, we shall no longer be held up, because we shall be able to make an order, and they will be able to enter forthwith, the compensation to be determined thereafter, so that we get over the question of delay that way.

An HON. MEMBER: Which Clause is that?

Dr. ADDISON: Clause 10.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The difficulty is that you will not get the local authorities to proceed even in this drastic way if they cannot get the land at a reasonable price.

Dr. ADDISON: I am well aware of that, and also I know that in a great many cases the valuers have advised a value which is materially less than that which is asked—in some cases very, very much less. But, after all, if you are going to acquire land compulsorily, you can adopt one of two methods. You can either pay for it not more than other people would pay for it, or you can say straight away that you will take it at less than its value, in other words, that you will appropriate it either in part or altogether. In this country, when we take things we pay for them, and, therefore, the only question is as to the price we are going to pay, and it seems to me that we have got to pay the fair value. I quite agree that in consequence of things which have grown up in the last hundred years you could quote cases indefinitely, but until we have obtained some comprehensive machinery for dealing with land required to be acquired for any public purpose whatsoever, we should be in that position, and it may well be that you should say, "We will take a basis, and we will make that a datum line, and we will give everybody notice that henceforth we will proceed upon that." I think that is a very useful proposition, but it has nothing to do with the Housing Bill. In this particular proposal we are told to take a valuation under the Act of 1909–10, and, in the event of any increment, to deduct that. What is the proposal in the Land Acquisition Bill? It is that we should take the fair market value, and I suggest to my hon. Friends that if we allow that Bill to become law they will find that the land
will be acquired under that Bill, in the cases where we have a difficulty now, at a fair value. From the information which is supplied to me, I have not a doubt that in the vast majority of cases, having regard to the definition there given, with the exclusion of the addition of all kinds of expenses, by numbers of witnesses and counsel, etc., you would get it by agreement; because the risk of the losing party having to pay their own costs under the Land Acquisition Bill would, in the vast majority of the cases, keep the very speculative persons out of the Courts altogether; and anybody who has studied the Acquisition of Land Bill will say at once that the immediate effect of that procedure will be enormously to increase the number of cases that will be settled by agreement.
This Amendment is put in as an alternative to the procedure of the Land Acquisition Bill, and I say that the proper place to deal with it is in that Bill. In the next place, so far as I can gather, a considerable sprinkling of the cases which we have had already, notwithstanding what my hon. Friend said, have not had a valuation fixed yet under the 1909 Act at all. In the case of most of the agricultural land not subject to the Increment Value Duty, valuations have not been made at all under that Act; and the effect of that would be that in the rural cases it would not apply, and in a large number of the urban cases also it would not apply. You would, therefore, pick out a section of the cases, and provide there a different machinery from what you use in the other cases. I am bound to say that I see no justification at all for such a procedure. If you say, "Let us have a different basis for the acquisition of land for housing from what you have in the Land Acquisition Bill," apply it generally to all the land required for housing, but it would not apply to anything like all the land which we shall want to acquire for the purposes of housing, and it is only introducing unnecessary complications. If there was a valuation as on any particular date that you could take as a datum line, it would be an arguable proposition, but there is nothing like that in existence, and therefore it could not be applied except in a limited number of cases. You have to make up your mind whether you will legislate on the lines of the Land Acquisition Bill for land acquired for public purposes generally, and if so on what basis,
and settle it in that Bill, or whether you will drop that procedure altogether and put a different basis, whether for forestry, small holdings, or what not, in the different Bills.
I suggest that those are the alternatives to decide, and if the House approves of our policy of having a general Bill for the purposes of the acquisition of land for public services, whether housing, reclamation, forestry, or anything else, that is the place to move this kind of Amendment, but in this Bill it would only add to our complications. Therefore, being perfectly consistent with what I said in Committee, recognising that the Acquisition of Land Bill purports to deal with this subject generally, that agricultural land would not be included in this, and that the valuation is incomplete, I say that those three reasons, which I have advanced in Committee, are just as sufficient now as they were then. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not like the Land Acquisition proposals, that Bill is the place to make the alteration, and not this Bill. I must resist any Amendment to put into this Bill a separate or distinct method, either of valuation or acquisition of land as apart from the Land Acquisition Bill. I do not think this Amendment would do other than this: it would take a certain amount of value in a certain number of cases, and the cry of Somerset House would be for a certain percentage of the rate. It would mean that land in any particular parish acquired under this scheme might be acquired on a different basis from land acquired in the same parish for another purpose, and if a person sold his land for housing it would be sold on a different basis than if he sold it to a private individual or for any other purpose. I suggest, on all those grounds, if you want to have a basis, have a rational basis applied to the whole of the land, and do it in the Land Acquisition Bill and not in this Bill.

Mr. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has never shown his dialectical skill with more advantage than he has in skimming over this Amendment. There is an Amendment on the Paper; he has not dealt with it. Is this Amendment a good Amendment or a bad one? He has not told us. He has only said, "Settle all your differences on the Land Acquisition Bill." But here is the Bill dealing with housing. You want to acquire land at a reasonable price for housing, and surely let us deal with the question of the price
of the land in this Bill. My right hon. Friend, of course, took up my hon. Friend below the gangway in some phrase, I think, about the acid test of his sincerity. No one doubts my right hon. Friend's sincerity. We all know he is entirely sincere. We all know the great work he has put in over this housing matter. We do not doubt his sincerity, but what I admire is the camouflage in which he endeavours to shroud this Amendment with imputations on his own sincerity. No, my right hon. Friend has not a good case. I think he knows it. The point is really, Do you want to pay for housing more than the land is worth?

Dr. ADDISON: No.

Mr. LAMBERT: Then, surely, you ought to accept this Amendment, because this Amendment states very clearly that it will not deal with anything except land that cannot be acquired on a voluntary basis. This Amendment, I understand, deals solely with the owner who is recalcitrant and will not sell his land at a fair price. Does my right hon. Friend say that is a wrong principle to put in this Bill? If not, why not put it in? He convicts himself out of his own mouth. He says he has known of cases where actual schemes have been held up because of the exorbitant price demanded for land, but he will not accept this Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: This Amendment will not help you; Clause 10 will.

Mr. LAMBERT: If it will not help, will my hon. Friend be good enough to suggest an Amendment which will help us? After all, it is a matter for the Government. My right hon. Friend is very clever when discussing this Amendment. He puts up Clause 9. Look at Clause 9! Never has there been such drastic legislation in this House! Now he says, refer to Clause 10. I really would like my right hon. Friend to deal very drastically with men who prevent housing schemes from being carried out, because of their own selfishness and their own desire to batten upon the spoils of the community. This measure, rightly, was made a subject of great attention at the Election. There is not a single Member of this House who would have gone to his constituency at the election and said. "We are going to buy land for houses for soldiers returning to their country, and we are going to pay any exorbitant price that may be demanded
by the landlord because the community around has increased the value of his land." My hon. Friend opposite, who is also a very clever dialectician, said, "This is not the right way to secure the object we all have in view." Then let us know what is the right way. My hon. Friends the Member for Newcastle and the Member for Middlesbrough, in two admirable speeches, have put a proposal before the Government which the Government say they cannot accept. Tell us what you can accept. The Land Acquisition Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, will not deal with this question of land being held up, in the vicinity of a large town, by a selfish landlord who wants to batten upon the value which has been created by the community and not by himself. I listened to this matter from the present Prime Minister. I followed him with great fidelity, and, apparently, following him on the Land Clauses has not been quite a success. But, over and over again, he has said—and I am sure the House of Commons, and certainly the country, will agree with this principle—that where the value of the land has been created by the community, then the community should, at any rate, share in some part of that value. My hon. Friend, in the case of a recalcitrant landlord who holds up his land, is going to compel the local authority to acquire it compulsorily.

Mr. McNEILL: This will not deal with it.

Mr. LAMBERT: Then let us have something that will deal with it. I am not so sure it will not deal with it, although my hon. Friend is experienced in these matters. I venture to say this will meet it, and that it is a good Amendment. But if the Government will not accept it, let them produce something of their own. I am perfectly certain the principle is sound, and I am sure there is not an hon. Member who will go to his constituents and support the payment of inflated value for land for building houses.

Mr. McNEILL: No!

Mr. LAMBERT: My hon. Friend opposite says "No." How does my hon. Friend suggest the matter should be dealt with? Does ho agree with the President of the Local Government Board when he says that actually schemes are being held up because of the exorbitant price that is being demanded for the land?

Dr. ADDISON: The Land Acquisition Bill will deal with that if we can get it through.

Mr. LAMBERT: I am not a member of that Committee, but if my right hon. Friend says that the Land Acquisition Bill will bring these owners who are now holding up schemes to book——

HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!" and "No!"

Mr. LAMBERT: There is a difference of opinion, apparently; but if this measure will prevent landowners who own land within the vicinity of towns holding up the land—as was so well stated by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough—if the Land Acquisition Bill will do that, I agree. But my hon. Friend opposite said "No."

Mr. McNEILL: Does my right hon. Friend contend that these landowners who are holding out, as he says, for an exorbitant price for their land are standing out for a price any larger than they would get under the Compulsory Clauses of this Bill as it stands?

Mr. LAMBERT: My hon. Friend I think mis-states my argument. I have really taken the case as stated by the President of the Local Government Board, that there are landowners to-day who have demanded exorbitant prices and have actually held up schemes for building improvements. If that be so, surely that is wrong?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, I agree.

Mr. LAMBERT: Then what is the way to meet it?

An HON. MEMBER: Compensation!

Mr. LAMBERT: I am not one of those who is against the landlord; in fact, I myself own a certain amount of land. The great bulk of landowners at the present time are doing the right thing. I have known landowners who have actually offered their land for nothing for these schemes. But I do feel that any landowner who stands out at this crisis for an exorbitant price should be prevented from doing so by the legislature. It is because I can see nothing very practical before the House of Commons that I trust my hon. Friend will go to a Division on his Amendment.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Whatever be the speech of the President, I quite under-
stand his resisting this Amendment, and I feel bound to do so myself. It really would put us in a ridiculous position if we had one basis of compensation for land required for housing, another for land for schools, another for cemeteries, another for land for sanitary purposes, and all the rest of it. The President was bound to resist this Amendment because of the ridicule that would otherwise have followed. Although I foresaw this, I did hope that in the course of his speech he should have given us some ray of hope that the Government were going to grasp this nettle—for it is a nettle !—and as they have dealt with the slum owners in Clause 9 so they would take their courage in both hands and introduce a drastic proposal. The result of this would be that" they would get the unanimous support of this House and the unanimous support of the country. If the right hon. Gentleman will say here and now that he, as a member of the Government, or rather as a member of the Committee of the Government—for that is what we are dealing with nowadays—who has a responsibility for the Land Acquisition Bill will introduce provisions into that Bill to ensure that the scandalous cases which have occurred in certain circumstances in the past, and are occurring now, will be dealt with and dealt with drastically, then I am perfectly certain that those of us who feel compelled to vote against this Amendment will do so with a much easier conscience and will be much happier over it.
As is admitted, and as we heard from the Commissioners upstairs the other day, in most cases the landlords, certainly individual and private landlords, of this country are not unreasonable beings. They have been patriotic and have come forth to do their duty. But here and there you find a landlord who brings odium upon his class and the whole system of real property in this country by standing Out for an exorbitant and unfair price, and, not getting it, holds up the natural progress and development of our big towns, and even the small villages, by standing out selfishly, whereas the reasonable man of his class would not do so. Further, you have a type of landlord increasing in this country who is even worse than the individual landlord, namely, the company. Company landlords are almost invariably worse. When a matter is in the hands of a company you have the manager and a board of directors. They say, "We are
out for the interests of the shareholders; we are responsible to them for this property, and we are going to extract every penny we can out of it," and they hold on to the last moment. To deal with these two exceptional cases we must have legislation. The sooner we have it the better in order to ensure that the price paid for land required for public purposes does not go beyond what is fair and reasonable. Let us get to what is the basis of a fair and reasonable price.
There is only one set of persons who can produce an Amendment which is really valuable, and that is the Government. The responsibility really lies with them. I am perfectly certain that is the way the country will put it. The people do not consider, and cannot go into the question of the individual owner, the matter of twenty-five years' purchase and all that sort of thing. Many things that you have to take into consideration in this matter arc complicated. I am, therefore, certain that unless the Government bring forward an Amendment they will not satisfy the country that they have properly faced this difficult problem. One of the things we have to do is to prevent land speculation, and this is the only way to do it. At present we are in this vicious circle, and you cannot tackle it, because the question is that somebody last year, say, bought agricultural land at more than its agricultural value in the expectation that it was going to be built over, and, like speculation on the Stock Exchange, they bought for a rise. Would it not be very unfair, it is suggested, to deprive a man of his rights under those circumstances? But we ought to stop this land speculation. We shall never do it until the Government bring in a really well-thought out Clause which will suggest that they are facing this difficult problem of land valuation and a consequent reasonable price. I speak as one who learns with profound regret that this matter has not been faced on the Land Acquisition Bill, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do what he said upstairs, see that when the Land Acquisition Bill comes to this House this very awkward nettle is seized by the Government, who should realise the odium and unpopularity which attaches to the whole of this question of land at the present time.

Mr. J. W. WILSON: I did not get an opportunity of speaking before the President replied, but I hope this is not too late for me to join in the appeal to him to
consider this matter, if not here, at any rate on the Acquisition of Land Bill. Personally I feel that the reason this Amendment has been introduced is that some of us desire to see even stronger terms laid down for the acquisition of land for housing. We want to make sure, and doubly sure, that none of these cases of hanging up shall be permitted in this urgent question of housing. We feel that the House and the public are prepared to accept a principle in a national emergency like this which they would not accept in a Bill dealing with the acquisition of land for all time and for all sorts of purposes. We feel that if the Acquisition of Land Bill is going to be stiffened up, and not watered down, as there have been signs of during its passage through Committee, it may leave this House weaker than it was brought in, but on the Housing Bill we have a united public opinion and a united House, and we are prepared to make exceptions in favour of housing. I wish this discussion had taken place in a larger House, and then hon. Members would realise that we are only asking that temporary powers should be given for a period of seven years, to tide over this congested period. We want to make it clear that all landowners in the country shall know that the House and the nation are in deadly earnest in determining that no housing scheme shall be handicapped by the opposition which has too often occurred in the past. I think the Minister in charge of the Bill will be putting a wholesome coping-stone to his very excellent Bill if he could see his way to accept, if not this Amendment, some other proposal which can be regarded as an Amendment, to deal with all possible obstruction in putting these schemes into operation, and pressing forward what we all desire at the earliest possible moment.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: Several of the speakers seem to me to have ignored the effect of this Bill and the Acquisition of Land Bill. Under this Bill you have power to take possession of land compulsorily in fourteen days. Under the Acquisition of Land Bill you have a panel of valuers, whole-time men, paid by the Government, to fix the value of land. It does not matter what the owner does, because, on the question of value, the decision of the Government valuer is final. No obstructing landlord such as those who have been referred to could possibly obstruct any housing scheme. These two measures are far and away the most drastic mea-
sures that have ever been introduced. It is true that the local authorities have not this power without these Bills, and there may be one or two cases where schemes may have been held up, but I do not think that state of things is at all universal. If you refer to Mr. John Burns' last Local Government Board Report you will find that he says on the whole that very few, if any, housing schemes have been held up by the landlords. That being the state of affairs, all the difficulties and objections which have been urged, and all the obstructions which landowners have placed in the way of these schemes, are at once removed by passing these two measures. Under these Bills you can take possession of the land, and the price is fixed by an independent valuer without any regard to the views of the obstructing landowners or companies, and that is what we all want. We want the owner to have a fair price, the same as he could get if he sold to a private purchaser. That is the position, and we have it under these two Bills. None of us wish the owner should receive sixpence more than the proper value, but at the same time I do not think he ought to receive sixpence less than the proper value. If you stipulate that he should have less, then you are giving their property away. I do not see why the land near some of these towns which will be largely acquired should not be paid for at a fair price, and we have no right to give away any of that land, no matter whether it belongs to the rich or the poor, except at its proper value fixed by a proper valuation. That is what is to be done under the present Act, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite, appreciates that point. I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite say that they will vote for this Amendment, in fact I feel sure that it will be withdrawn.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: The hon. Member who has just spoken championed the cause of the landlords in Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I never championed the case of any landlord in the Committee at all, and I have been all for housing reform. I have not spoken on behalf of the landlords during the whole of the time.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: With regard to the quotation from Mr. John Burns' Report, I challenged the hon. and gallant Member in Committee about it, and he said that statement was made in 1907.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: No, in 1914.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Yes, in 1914, and that is five years ago. Those of us who have had some experience on local authorities know that we have been unable to put any schemes forward to the Local Government Board simply because the landlords are asking extortionate prices for their land.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: Have those schemes been put forward during the War?

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Yes; schemes have been put forward during the War, and I could give instances from my own town where we could get land at a certain price many years ago at a reasonable price, but since then we have been unable to build on account of the extortionate price the landlords have been asking for land. We have been unable to build schools because they have been asking £750 and even £l,000 per acre for land upon which we wish to build schools, and they have been asking £250 and £500 an acre for land to build houses upon. That has made it impossible for us to build houses at an economic rent, because you cannot do it when you have to pay such extortionate prices for the land. It has been said that we are all in sympathy with Tommy, who gave his all to fight for his country, and surely he should have the first consideration when we arc considering housing schemes, because the higher the price you are going to pay for the land the higher rent you must charge to cover the cost of capital and interest. There is no doubt about it that the Government will do a. wise thing if they adopt this Amendment, which will be in the interests of the Government and it will also expedite housing schemes considerably all over the country. As the President of the Local Government Board has pointed out, there are several schemes that cannot be put forward now by the local authorities because the landowners are asking such an excessive price for the land. Therefore. I hope the Government will accept this Amendment, and if they do not I hope my hon. Friend will press it to a Division.

Mr. RAFFAN: I wish to join in the appeal made from practically every quarter of the House to my right hon. Friend to give this matter further consideration The Amendment appears to me to be perfectly reasonable and one which might well be accepted. If the Government in
their wisdom think either its language or the procedure that it suggests is not the best, I am sure that there would be general acquiescence in any other form of words which they brought forward to achieve the end in view. My hon. Friend who has just spoken has said that in this matter soldiers who have been fighting our battles abroad should have first consideration. I entirely agree. What does this Amendment in essence propose? It proposes, when you have ascertained the value of the land at the present time, that you should deduct the increment value which has accrued since the last occasion. That means that in almost every case you deduct the increment which has arisen during the period of the War, and I suggest that it is perfectly preposterous that the value of the land which has accrued because our gallant men have fought so bravely for us should be charged against them when you are building houses in which they are to live. It is an increment value which they should not be called upon to pay. How does this increment value arise? In the majority of cases it arises because the Government have adumbrated this housing scheme. The fact that there is a great demand for additional houses under a national scheme will no doubt give an added value to the land, and it is perfectly clear that it is an increment which ought not to be taken in account. I entirely agree with the appeal which has been made from so many quarters to the Government themselves to propose some other form of words if they think that this form of words does not carry out the object fully, but I entirely demur to the main case which the Government has set up to-night, that there is no necessity for this Amendment because the Acquisition of Land Bill fully meets all the needs of the case.
9.0 P.M.
I was one of a small minority which took the view when the Acquisition of Land Bill was introduced that it was entirely unsatisfactory, and that view has been adopted by responsible people in various parts of the country. I do not know whether the attention of my hon. and galant Friend has been drawn to the resolutions which have been passed by our great municipalities with regard to this matter. The Glasgow Corporation has passed a resolution, I think almost unanimously, to the effect that in their view the Acquisition of Land Bill is entirely unsatisfactory from the point of view of
acquiring land on reasonable terms for the people, and that the proper method is the method proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) in Committee on the Acquisition of Land Bill, namely, that the value at which you purchase should be the same value as that on which the land is taxed and rated. The Manchester Corporation has passed a resolution to the same effect. These are not mere partisan bodies; they are great municipalities with a long experience of the difficulty of acquiring land on reasonable terms for the purpose of housing, and the Government will be ill-advised indeed if they turn a deaf ear to their opinion. I do not know whether the President of the Local Government Board is keeping himself fully abreast of what is happening upstairs in Committee on the Acquisition of Land Bill. That poor and paltry Bill, as I think it was when it passed its Second Reading, is being gradually worsened and made a less efficient instrument for the purpose of securing land on fair and reasonable terms. The right hon. Gentleman actually claimed that one of the merits of the Bill was that in future counsel and solicitors would not be able to appear, and that therefore the heavy costs involved in that way would not arise. Under pressure, the Government upstairs relinquished that portion of the Bill. Counsel and solicitors therefore will still be able to appear and their charges will still be costs in the case. The right hon. Gentleman also said that if a fair offer were made by the local authority to the landowner and he refused and went to arbitration, he would then be mulcted in all the costs. That provision has also disappeared from the Bill as a result of a majority vote at the last sitting of the Committee. Poor as the Bill was before it went upstairs, when it comes down here again it will be more unsatisfactory still. If the Government cannot accept this Amendment to-night, I suggest, before the Acquisition of Land Bill comes downstairs, that they very seriously consider the proposal made by the Glasgow Corporation, by the Manchester Corporation, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles, namely, that when you are acquiring land you should have the same valuation for that purpose as the valuation which you have for the purpose of taxation. That would be a fair and reasonable basis—fair for the one purpose and fair for the other. The Government have altogether over-estimated the opposition
to the proposal when they suggested it, and they have altogether under-estimated the great feeling that will arise if this measure goes through, and if public money, instead of assisting housing, is simply poured into the pockets of the landlords.

Major ASTOR: I would remind the House of one or two points from which we are rather drifting. Several speakers have stated that hon. Members who have taken part in the discussion of this Amendment have not really dealt with its merits or demerits, and the word "camouflage" has been used. The great difficulty is that we have really been discussing the Acquisition of Land Bill. In fact, the hon. Member who has just sat down said that if this Amendment could not be accepted he hoped that the Government would make some Amendment to produce the same result in the Acquisition of Land Bill. This is a Housing Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that he had to give his reason in support of this Amendment as he had not been on the Acquisition of Land Bill upstairs. I gather from some of the other speakers that they have proposed similar Amendments on the Land Acquisition Bill and it is quite clear they are trying to raise the same points on this Bill. But any discussion on Clauses or Amendment proper to the Land Acquisition Bill should be dealt with there and not here. We have put into this Bill Clauses dealing with slum property which the Cabinet were not quite certain should be included in it. Indeed, they felt they were stretching a point in putting those Clauses into the Housing Bill, and they, therefore, decided to concentrate in one measure the provisions dealing with the particular point as to the basis on which land should be acquired. It is, therefore, somewhat difficult now to deal with an Amendment which has to be discussed on the Land Acquisition Bill. I want to remind the House that in Clause 10 we deal with one of the grievances put forward, namely, the holding up of land. We give certain powers of entry on such land. By Clause 13 we enable the local authorities to acquire land in anticipation of their requirements and that will enable the local authorities to buy the land at cheaper prices than would otherwise be possible. I do not want to be drawn into any detailed discussion of proposals which, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the Government really
should be dealt with on the Land Acquisition Bill, and if these matters are proper to the Land Acquisition Bill then let hon. Members who desire to get their points carried support the Government in making that Bill as fair and as drastic as is desired. I am sure that my colleagues who are responsible for the Land Acquisition Bill will take full cognisance of the discussions we have had to-day and no doubt when this measure comes down to the House for consideration we shall have a repetition of the points we have just been discussing.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: We shall fight it in this House.

Major ASTOR: This has been a most valuable Debate. We all want the same thing. We want to get the land at a fair and reasonable price; we do not want people to pay too much for land for such a vital purpose as the erection of houses. But I do think the House should reserve further discussion on the basis on which the land should be acquired until the Land Acquisition Bill comes before it

Major BARNES: I should like to deal with one or two of the points which have been raised on the Amendment which has been side-tracked on to an entirely erroneous issue. There is no question of setting up a different basis of valuation to that which is set up in the Land Acquisition Bill. This Amendment simply provides for the basis of valuation set up in the Land Acquisition Bill to be retained, and what it endeavours to do is that after you have got your valuation on the basis set up in the Land Acquisition Bill you should make a deduction from that valuation. That is the whole purpose of the Amendment. The idea of deduction did not originate with me. It came from a Conservative Member. Let me repeat his words:
I suggest, then, if it comes to the crucial process of cutting off from the price a certain amount it will be a far better process than allowing it to be thought that inflated prices are being got, and the whole scheme being endangered thereby.
Therefore the idea of making a deduction from the valuation arrived at in some other way is not a new one, and I think it would be specially advantageous in a Housing Bill under the special circumstances of the time. May I point out that no alternative method to my Amendment has been suggested? My plan is one that can be easily adopted. The machinery is already there, and unless the Govern-
ment are going right against the whole idea and principle of making reductions, surely it is up to them to put forward some way of doing it. There is nothing out of the way in my Amendment. We have been told that the Cabinet discussed the desirability of putting these provisions into the Housing Bill. But let me point out that my Amendment has nothing to do with the basis of valuation, and

that it does not interfere with the Land Acquisition Bill. Indeed, an Amendment to the same effect on the Land Acquisition Bill has been definitely resisted, and the only place for such an Amendment is admitted to be in this Bill.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 124.

Division No. 34.]
AYES.
[9.15 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Hogge, J. M.
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shaw, Tom (Preston)


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Short, A. (Wednescury)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)


Bramsdon, Sir T.
King, Cont. Douglas
Smith, W. (Wellingcorough)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Spoor, B. G.


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Lunn, William
Swan, J. E. C.


Cairns, John
M'Lean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Thorne, G. R. (Welverhampton, E.)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Wallace, J.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Walsh, S. (Ince, Lanes.)


Devlin, Joseph
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Edge, Captain William
Neal, Arthur
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Williams. Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Gardiner. J. (Perth)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C)


Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Rose, Frank H.



Grundy, T. W.
Rowlands, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hartshorn, V.
Royce, William Stapleton
Major Barnes and Mr. T. Thomson.


Hirst, G. H.






NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gray, Major E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Parker, James


Ainsworth, Capt. C.
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Parry, Major Thomas Henry


Archdale, Edward M.
Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Astor, Major Hon. Waldon
Gregory, Holman
Perring, William George


Atkey, A. R.
Griggs, Sir Peter
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton


Baird, John Lawrence
Hacking, Captain D. H.
Pratt, John William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hanson, Sir Charles
Preston, W. R.


Barnett, Captain Richard W.
Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)
Purchase, H. G.


Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Hilder, Lieutenant-Colonel F.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Betterton, H. B.
Hood, Joseph
Remer, J. B.


Birchall, Major J. D.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Jameson, Major J. G.
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Breese, Major C. E.
Jephcott, A. R.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E.


Briggs, Harold
Jesson, C.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Johnson, L. S.
Stephenson, Col. H. K.


Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonel A.
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Campbell, J. G. D.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Sugden, Lieut. W. H.


Carr, W. T.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sutherland, Sir William


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Clough, R.
Kellaway, Frederick George
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lane-Fox, Major G. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Collox, Major W. P.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)
Townley, Maximillian G.


Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.
Lloyd, George Butler
Tryon, Major George Clement


Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Lorden, John William
Waddington, R.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lort-Williams, J.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Courthope, Major George Loyd
Lynn, R. J.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Craig. Capt. C. (Antrim)
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Dawes, J. A.
M'Donald, D. H. (Bothwell, Lanark)
Whitla, Sir William


Doyle, N, Grattan
M'Neill, Ronald (Canterbury)
Willey, Lt.-Col. F. V.


Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Middlebrock, Sir William
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Eyres-Monsell, Com.
Mitchell, William Lane
Wilis, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Fell. Sir Arthur
Moles, Thomas
Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)


FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wolmer, Viscount


Foxcroft, Capt. Charles Talbot
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Worsfold, T. Cato


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Mosley, Oswald



Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mount, William Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Dudley Ward and Lord E. Talbot.


Gilbert, James Daniel
Munre, Rt. Hon. Robert



Giknour, Lt.-Col. John

CLAUSE 11.—(Amendment of Procedure for Compulsory Acquisition of Land.)

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (6) of the First Schedule to the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, any order for the compulsory acquisition of land which is duly submitted after the date of the passing of this Act, and before the expiration of two years from that date, by a local authority under the provisions of Part I. of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, may be confirmed by the Local Government Board without a public inquiry.

Major ASTOR: I beg to move, at the end, to add
(4) The Amendments to the said Schedule effected by this Act shall apply to that Schedule as originally enacted but not as applied by any other enactment.
The object of this Amendment is to make it quite clear what procedure should be adopted by an education authority in the acquisition of land for the purpose of erecting schools. By the Education Act which was passed last year, 1918, the procedure to be followed by education authorities when acquiring land for the purpose of erecting schools was laid down by reference to the First Schedule of the Housing Act of 1909. That Schedule is amended by the Housing Bill which is now before the House, as far as procedure goes. It was not quite clear, as the Bill came down here, which procedure should be adopted by education authorities when they were acquiring land for the erection of schools, and this is intended to make it clear.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Additional Powers as to Acquisition of Land and Houses.)

(2) The purposes for which land may be acquired under Part III. of the principal Act shall be deemed to include—

(a) the lease or sale of the land, under the powers conferred by this Act, with a view to the erection thereon of houses for the working classes by persons other than the local authority; and
(b) the lease or sale under the powers conferred by this Act of any part of the land acquired with a view to the use thereof for purposes which in the opinion of the local authority are necessary or desirable for or incidental to the development of the land as a building estate.

Major ASTOR: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words
including the provision, maintenance, and improvement of houses and gardens and other works or buildings for or for the convenience of persons belonging to the working classes and other persons.
When we were discussing this Clause in Committee one or two hon. Members were not quite certain what was included in the term "desirable for or incidental to the development of the land as a building estate." In our opinion there was no no doubt as to what was included. I move this, however, to make quite clear the purposes for which land may be acquired under the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words
Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act or in this Act contained a local authority or county council shall not be authorised to acquire any land belonging to any local authority, company, or person empowered by Act of Parliament to supply water in any area and required by them for the purpose of such supply, or for protecting from contamination any water which such local authority, company, or person are so empowered to impound, take, or use for the purpose of supply.
I move this for the purpose of protecting water authorities. A large number of water companies hold land not only for the purpose of extracting water, but to protect from pollution the springs they have in a particular place. The object of the Amendment is to prevent any local authority taking land so held by a water company, because it is highly desirable that water companies should not be compelled or tempted to sell any land which they hold for the protection of an existing water supply. It must be obvious that it would be no advantage to a water company to hold such lands, because they are non-productive, and it is not likely that they would hold more of such land than they could possibly help. It might be a very great temptation to a local authority, which might want to build cottages, to press a water company to give it some small portion of land which they hold to protect springs, which would be highly undesirable. I am sure the Government will agree as to the desirability of protecting water companies in that way, and no doubt in other Acts of Parliament such provision has been made and water companies' land is in certain cases held sacred, like that of railway companies, and cannot be taken. It is an exemption which the Government will be anxious to continue in this Bill. The only-difference between my hon. and gallant Friend and myself will be whether or not it will be more conveniently done in this form or by incorporating a previous Act.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I know the Government is always anxious to protect water companies and they are protected against contamination. I know many water companies which are possessed of a considerable amount of land, which they buy for the purpose of protecting their springs and water courses, and these words are proposed for this purpose. I understand my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) to suggest that this is covered by another Act. If that other Act, to which I hope he will refer, is incorporated, I shall be satisfied.

Major ASTOR: I am glad to have an opportunity of giving my hon. Friends an assurance that the point they desire to obtain is in our opinion—and we have consulted the Law Officers—already secured. They want, very naturally, to see that land which is held by a water company, by statute or by any authority, for the purpose of providing water should not be invaded or taken under the provisions of this Bill to the detriment of the present owners. In our opinion the point which is raised is already covered by Section 45 of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909. It says that nothing in the Housing Acts shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of any land which is the property of any local authority or has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or any other public undertaking. In our opinion this Act will have to be read with the other Housing Acts. This Clause will really protect the interests to safeguard which this Amendment is brought forward If my hon. and learned Friend likes on Clause 14, after the word "manner," to add the words "and subject to the like restrictions," I think that will give him an additional safeguard in the matter which in our opinion will fit in better with the Bill as drawn. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment where it is now moved.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for his assurance, which will satisfy those on whose behalf I put down the Amendment. When the time comes I will move the Amendment suggested, although I do not know if it strengthens the position as he puts it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

CLAUSE 13.—(Power to acquire in advance Lands in areas proposed for inclusion in Improvement Schemes under Parts I. and 11. of Principal Act.)

Where a local authority have under Section four of the principal Act passed a resolution that an area is an unhealthy area and that an improvement scheme ought to be made in respect of such area, or have under Section thirty-nine of the principal Act passed a resolution directing a scheme to be prepared for the improvement of an area, the local authority may, with the consent of and subject to any conditions imposed by the Local Government Board, acquire by agreement any lands included within the area not withstanding that the scheme may not at the time of acquisition have been made by the local authority or confirmed or sanctioned by the Local Government Board; and the acquisition of such lands shall be deemed to be a purpose for which the local authority may borrow money under and subject to the provisions of Part I., or as the case may be, Part II. of the principal Act.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, after the word "agreement" ["acquire by agreement any lands"], to insert the words, "or compulsorily."
I think, in order to justify the Amendment, I must make reference to another Amendment immediately following. The object is to do something for the people who will be condemned to live in the slums for a very considerable period after the passing of the Act. I think there is a real danger that in talking about these new houses which are to be built on the outskirts of cities, people may be led into thinking the slums are going to be cleared away in a very much shorter time than will in fact be possible. We have, before we can clear away any slums, to overtake the present shortage of houses. That will be a task which will probably consume a very much longer period than may be present to the minds of many people in the country. There is also the consideration that large numbers of people do not wish to leave the places in which they have been living for years, where they are conveniently situated near to their work, and above all, they do not wish to pay the increased rent that will have to be charged for these new houses. In order to deal with the slums, there is Part I. and Part II. of the principal Act, but neither of these parts have in the past led to very great activities on the part of local authorities. Under Part I. procedure is lengthy and extremely expensive. Part II. has been made impossible during the War because you could not put a demolition order upon a house when the alternative was to put
the tenant into the street, because there was no new house for him to go to. We might just as well face the fact that the slum houses will be with us whether we like them or not for a good many years to come, and it will be well for us to see if we can do something to improve them during the transition period.
My Amendment contemplates a procedure of this kind. In Clause 13 the Government have laid it down that a local authority, after passing a resolution that an area is unhealthy, may acquire the land comprised within that area by agreement, notwithstanding the fact that they have not made any scheme which has been sanctioned or confirmed by the Local Government Board. I cannot think that that Clause by itself is going to lead to very much. If the local authority passes a resolution that an area is unhealthy, and then tries to acquire the land by agreement, they may agree with some of the owners, but others may stand out, and there is nothing to limit the price which the owners may ask. What I desire to see done is that the local authority should have power to acquire this land compulsorily, and should be able to assess compensation under the terms of Clause 9. If a subsequent Amendment which I wish to move is accepted, it would give the local authorities power to acquire by agreement—and I hope this will be by agreement—the houses existing upon this land and having acquired these houses, I then desire that the local authority, having substituted itself as the landlord for the existing landlord, should see what can be done to improve the conditions in that particular area. A great deal can be done without the expenditure of any great sum of money. Anyone who lives in a large town must know of many small houses where the landlord has not carried out the repairs which he should have done, where the houses are leaky, the walls are damp, the sanitary condition insufficient, the water supply inadequate, and many other things are required which the local authority has power to demand that the landlord shall do, but which in practice are only done very slowly, very partially, and by degrees.
If the local authority were substituted as the landlord in one of these areas, and had acquired the greater part of the houses upon it, it could then carry out at its own expense—which would be compara-
tively small—improvements which would materially alter the conditions of life in that area. Having made the houses comparatively decent and reasonably fit for human habitation, that area could go on for another ten or twelve years, and at the end of that time the local authority would have prepared its proper town-planning scheme, and would be ready to carry it out, while the new houses in the meantime would be available for these people to go to, when the slum houses were pulled down. I am certain this is a policy which is worth the attention of the Government and the House. Do not let us be led away to concentrate all our thoughts upon building new houses. The problem is too big to be dealt with at once. Inevitably a long time must elapse before anything very material can be done. In the meantime, is it not better to try to improve the conditions of life for these people who still have to go on living in the slums? It is as the first step to carrying out a policy of that kind that I move this Amendment.

Sir T. WALTERS: I beg to second the Amendment, formally, in order that I may speak on it. I am very much in agreement with the arguments of the hon. Member, but before that policy is decided upon by the Government I would like to express the hope that we shall not take any step which would hinder or retard our desires. We have two types of houses that the housing reformers are anxious to deal with. There is that type which ought to be condemned as slum houses, but it is rather difficult to persuade local authorities to embark at once upon large schemes respecting another class of property, which, in the interests of modern housing, it is almost equally desirous to deal with, and that is areas in which the houses are not absolutely slums, and are not insanitary within the meaning of the Public Health Act, but which are undesirable places of residence—properties that are very much out of date and very much below any reasonable standard for the housing of the working classes. I have in mind a class of house of which large numbers exist in industrial quarters, with a considerable density of population, where the internal arrangements are antiquated and very primitive, and where it is really impossible to obtain any high standard of decency, comfort or health.
I am very anxious that under the provisions of this particular Clause local authorities should be stimulated to secure
by agreement properties which you would not be justified in absolutely condemning as insanitary, and purchasing them under the very drastic, and properly drastic, provisions of this Bill—properties which still provide some kind of dwelling and would pass muster for a number of years, and which the local authorities would hesitate to condemn because they would say that they still have some reasonable period of life, and that it would be a great hardship upon the owners to condemn them at once as, insanitary and pay for them on the scale of compensation provided. I want the local authority, while they are clearing out slum areas, to look about them and see whether they can, by agreement on reasonable terms, purchase these houses as being below the standard of modern comfort, and pay for them at a fair price. Having done so, they could pull down the houses and sell the areas for the development of factory sites, and the price they would obtain for that site would enable them to cover the cost they would incur by purchasing the houses by agreement on fair terms. In that way you would have two methods of dealing with dwellings, first, the clearance of slums under the definite policy provided by this Bill, and you would have in addition a vigorous policy under which the local authority could acquire by agreement houses below the standard of modern conditions, and clear the houses away, sell the sites for factories, and build better modern houses up to our present standard of comfort, convenience, and health in the suburbs of the town. I hesitate before accepting this Amendment lest by inserting the words "or compulsorily" we do something which would cause local authorities to hesitate to embark upon the kind of scheme which we—the hon. Member and myself—desire they should embark upon, but to schedule areas and definitely acquire by compulsory powers means in many cases that local authorities would hesitate lest they should inflict what they would consider injustice upon those owning dwellings not absolutely slum areas. Still, it is desirable, in addition to dealing with absolutely insanitary slum areas, in pursuance of a considered, well thought out policy, to get rid of houses that are below the standard of human habitation that is now required. I hope that the Minister in charge of the Bill, if he sees his way to accept this—of which, person-ally, I shall be glad—will consider the advisability of pursuing the policy which
I have just been indicating of acquiring by agreement the class of house I have described. In this way I hope and believe that the tendency will be to raise the standard of housing generally, and to do it in a way involving the minimum of cost and maximum effect.

Major ASTOR: Unfortunately, this, again, is a manuscript Amendment. If I had had a copy I should have considered it more fully, but I have tried to understand the hon. Member's intentions. We have discussed, as I understand, two Amendments. The first is an Amendment to Clause 13, giving local authorities the power of acquiring compulsorily land in anticipation of need, and the next is giving local authorities power to acquire houses which might be condemned as slums, and to repair them and make them habitable. It would be very difficult for us to authorise a local authority to acquire land compulsorily unless it were part of a scheme. If a local authority wanted to acquire land as part of a scheme, then it should submit the scheme and if it were sound we should grant its request, but it is very difficult to accept an Amendment authorising local authorities to acquire compulsorily land which is not part of a definite scheme. That is my difficulty in accepting that part of the Amendment. As regards the second Amendment which was explained by the Mover, the houses in question are either houses which are too bad to be repaired and ought not to be acquired, or else they are houses which may be repaired and made habitable for a limited time, short or long. The houses which should be demolished cannot be dealt with here, and the houses which can be repaired can be dealt with, in our opinion, either under Clause 12 or Clause 27. Clause 12 of the Bill gives the local authority power
to acquire any estate or interest in any houses which might be made suitable as houses for the working classes together with any lands occupied with such houses, and the local authority shall have power to alter, enlarge, repair, and improve any such houses or buildings.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: That is under Part III. of the principal Act.

Major ASTOR: No; I believe the point which my hon. Friend has in mind would be met by the Clause as drawn in the Bill.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Clause 12 says
for the purposes of Part III. of the principal Act.

Major ASTOR: We are amending Part III. to include this, giving the right to acquire houses which may be adapted, and the first object of my hon. Friend is met by the Clause as drafted, unless, of course, it was decided to deal with this problem under Clause 27, under which the houses may be acquired by the local authority and repaired and adapted and made suitable, or else the owner is to make it suitable under Clause 27. It is because of that I cannot accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I only regret that his Amendment was not on the Paper and that I did not have a copy of it sooner, as I should have been able to deal with it in more detail.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think there is any use in moving the next Amendment after the way in which my hon. Friend has met us. Not having been on the Committee dealing with this Bill, I realise that I have not a good chance of making my points on Report, especially as my Amendments were only manuscript, although I tried to meet that by informing the hon. Member for Woolwich as to what it was we desired, but evidently it did not get to the ear of the Minister in time. I do not feel at all satisfied that the Minister has really understood the objects of these Amendments. I think, however, that I will not move my further Amendment now, but I hope that the matter will be raised on some future occasion when there will be a better opportunity of explaining it.

CLAUSE 14.—(Power to acquire Water Right.)

A local authority or a county council may, notwithstanding anything in Section three hundred and twenty-seven or Section three hundred and thirty-two of the Public Health Act, 1875, be authorised to abstract water from any river, stream, or lake, or the feeders thereof, whether within or without the district of the local authority or the county, for the purpose of affording a water supply for houses provided or to be provided under a scheme made under the Housing Acts, and to do all such acts as may be necessary for affording a water supply to such houses, in like manner as they may be authorised to acquire land for the purposes of the scheme.

Provided that no local authority or county council shall be authorised under this Section to abstract any water which any local authority, corporation, company, or person are empowered by Act of Parliament to impound, take or use for the purpose of supply within any area, or any water the abstraction of which would, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, injuriously affect the working or management of any canal or inland navigation.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, after "1875." to insert the words,
but subject to the provisions of Section 52 of that Act.
This is an Amendment to safeguard the water companies. By Section 52 of the Public Health Act, 1875, provision is made for the protection of existing water companies. If any person wants to supply water in the area, before he can do so he must give a chance to the existing water company to quote a rate. In case a rate is agreed, there is an end of the matter. If it is not agreed, it is referred to the arbitration of a Government Department. This is a protection which it is only reasonable the water company should have. There is some doubt as to whether this Amendment is necessary, but the companies are in favour of this protection being given, and I trust that the Government will consent to those words being inserted to prevent the ambiguity which, the water companies have been advised by counsel, exists.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Major ASTOR: I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment. Amendment agreed to.

Major LANE-FOX: I beg to move, to leave out the words
provided or to be provided under a scheme made under the Housing Act,
and to insert instead thereof the words
which are not provided with a sufficient supply of water.
The point is simple. Clause 14 gives power to the local authority or to the county council to supply water from any river, stream, etc., for the purpose of affording water supply for houses under this Act. There are many cases, especially in rural districts, where the few houses required to be supplied by the local authorities will be alongside existing and scattered houses, and it does seem that when the opportunity arises the duty should be placed on the authority to provide proper water supply for the houses, alongside. As the Bill stands, there is no provision for including other houses. That, of course, opens the question as to how far the water supply will be sufficient for existing purposes, and we are trying to safeguard that by a consequential Amendment later on:
Provided that nothing done here under shall prejudicially affect the supply of such water to existing houses and agricultural holdings.
There is no doubt that in agricultural districts the water supply is thoroughly in-
adequate now and than considerable improvement is required. It is a mistake to do the thing piecemeal. When we are imposing on authorities the duty of supplying water to houses built under this scheme we ought to have an opportunity of dealing with the inadequate supply to houses already existing.

Major LLOYD-GREAME: I beg to second the Amendment.

10.0P.M.

Major ASTOR: It would be convenient if I explained the Government view on this Amendment and the other Amendments, because they are all more or less interlocked. I cannot accept the Amendment we are now discussing, but I can take a part of the other Amendments in the name of the same hon. Members as an addition to one of the others on the Paper. The House will know that anything dealing with water, the acquisition compulsorily of water rights, is apt to raise very difficult questions. Since this Bill was introduced we have been quite prepared to add any safeguard protecting existing owners of water rights. In our opinion we have made the position quite clear. If this Amendment were accepted it would really be not an adaptation of the existing law to meet the needs of the new houses, but we should really be amending drastically the law as it relates to water and the supply of water to houses—a very desirable thing. I am entirely in sympathy with the object of the Mover, but in our opinion we ought not to deal with it here in this Bill. It is a big Bill and is already carrying a considerable amount. We were not by any means certain that Clause 14, as introduced, would be accepted by the House. We are very grateful for its acceptance, but we do not want to overload our proposal, as we should undoubtedly do if we accepted this Amendment. I am prepared and authorised to accept the next Amendment on the Paper, if it is slightly modified.

Major LANE-FOX: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for going as far as he has gone, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, after the word "houses" ["to such houses in like manner"], to insert the words
or houses that may be deprived of sufficient water supply by reason of such abstraction.
I do not know the exact form of alteration which the Government are prepared to accept.

Major ASTOR: The words that the Government are prepared to accept are as follows: After the word "houses" ["to such houses in like manner"], insert the words
and to any houses or agricultural holdings that may be deprived of sufficient water supply by reason of such abstraction.
The quickest way of dealing with this would be for the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, and let mo move the modification I have referred to.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: After the word "houses" ["to such houses in like manner"] insert the words
and to any houses or agricultural holdings that may be deprived of sufficient water supply by reason of such abstraction."—[Major Astor.]

Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, after the word "manner" ["houses, in like manner "], to insert the words
and subject to the like restriction.
The Government accepted this proposal a short time ago.

Major ASTOR: I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. LORDEN: After the acceptance of the previous Amendment I am in difficulty about one standing in my name, which is, after the word "scheme" ["for the purposes of the scheme"], to insert the words
provided that a local authority or county council shall provide a sufficient supply of water to any existing houses or premises that may be adversely affected by such abstraction.
It is a little stronger, and it seems to me that you want something of that kind, because if a county council or local authority which has a housing scheme, taps all the water in a neighbourhood it may take away the water from a few cottages and farms already existing, and may make those cottages insanitary so that they have to be condemned by the local authority. Under the circumstances I think a better plan would be for me not to move this Amendment, for a largo portion of the ground covered by it is provided for in the previous Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: As we have made good progress, and in consequence of a desire to have a certain discussion on the Ad-
journment, and in order to take the Lords Amendments to the Ministry of Health Bill, I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), be now adjourned.

Sir C. WARNER: There is an Amendment to this Clause providing that nothing done here under shall prejudice a fair supply of water to such houses, and which I understood was accepted by the Government.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understood that that was consequential to an Amendment which was withdrawn.

Major ASTOR: The Amendment suggested is really unnecessary, because of an Amendment with the words "and any house or agricultural holding that may be deprived."

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

CLAUSE 2.—(General Powers and Duties of Minister in Relation to Health.)

It shall be the duty of the Minister in the exercise and performance of any powers and duties transferred to him by or in pursuance of this Act, to take all such steps as may be desirable to secure the effective carrying out and co-ordination of measures conducive to the health of the people, including measures for the prevention and cure of diseases, the treatment of physical and mental defects, the initiation and direction of research, the collection, preparation, publication, and dissemination of information and statistics relating thereto, and the training of persons for health services.

Lords Amendments:

After the word "to" ["transferred to"], insert the words or conferred upon.

—Agreed to.

After the word "the" ["the effective], insert the word
preparation.

—Agreed to.

After the word "diseases" ["cure of diseases"], insert the words
the avoidance of fraud in connection with alleged remedies therefor.

—Agreed to.

After the word "defects" ["mental defects"], insert the words
the treatment and care of the blind.

—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Transfer of Powers and Duties to and from Minister.)

(1) There shall be transferred to the Minister—
(d) all the powers and duties of the Board of Education with respect to the medical inspection and treatment of children and young persons: Provided that, for the purpose of facilitating the effective exercise and performance of these powers and duties, the Minister may make arrangements with the Board of Education respecting the submission and approval of schemes of local education authorities and the payment of grants to local education authorities, so far as such schemes and payment relate to or are in respect of medical inspection and treatment provided for under paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of Section thirteen of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, as amended and extended by Section eighteen of the Education Act, 1918. And the powers and duties of the Minister may under any such arrangements be exercised and performed by the Board on his behalf and with his authority under such conditions as he may think fit;

(3) It shall be lawful for His Majesty from lime to time by Order in Council to transfer from the Minister to any other Government department any of the powers and duties of the Minister which appear to His Majesty not to relate to matters affecting or incidental to the health of the people.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1, d), after the word "persons" ["and young persons"], insert the words,
under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section thirteen of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, as amended and extended by the Education Act, 1918.

—Agreed to.

Leave out the words,
provided for under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section thirteen 'of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907 as amended and extended by Section eighteen of the Education Act, 1918.

—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (3), after the word "Minister" ["duties of the Minister"], insert the words,
whether relating to the relief of the poor or otherwise.

—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Staff and Remuneration.)

(1) The Minister may appoint such secretaries, officers, and servants as the Minister may, subject to the consent of the Treasury as to number, determine:

Lords Amendment:

After the word "appoint," insert the words,
one Parliamentary Secretary and.

Read a second time.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move,
That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Their Lordships by this and subsequent Amendments struck out one of the Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Health. I am well aware this is not a popular cause to defend, but I would ask the House to remember that in Committee and Report, and Third Beading, the proposal of the Bill in respect of this matter went through without a word of objection, and, therefore, I think I am entitled to say that we unanimously approved of it, and at all events there was no word to the contrary. The facts are that under the great amalgamation which takes place under this Bill there is absorbed the whole of the National Health Insurance work, as to which there was previously a representative who answered solely for the National Insurance work, which will now be under "the Ministry of Health. There was also previously one Under-Secretary of the Local Government Board who is brought in under the Ministry of Health. In addition to that, we have to undertake a gigantic task in connection with housing of which we have had some experience today. The object of the Bill before the House is to enable us to formulate and submit to the House, and subsequently secure the carrying out of effective measures for dealing with the health of the people in a more comprehensive way than we have done hitherto. I may say it is only too true that in connection with some of our affairs, such as tuberculosis and venereal diseases, our demands hitherto have been utterly inadequate, and in many respects we have not begun to make provision for a good many things which are all required. The burdens which would be cast on the Ministry in connection with demobilisation and the absorption of work now under the Board of Education, and Pensions, apart from matters which will arise in connection with the Poor Law and other matters of importance, is so great that we certainly ought not to be deprived of the Parliamentary assistance which we had before when there was a spokesman for National Insurance, and we ought not to be placed in a worse position than previously. In
my opinion it is quite impossible for the Minister to do this work full justice unless he can have adequate assistance in the way of at least two good men to whom he can delegate a great amount of his political and Parliamentary work. It would have been open to us to keep insurance separate, but now it has been amalgamated. I know that their Lordships have the desire to promote economy and to avoid the multiplication of officers, but I am sure it is not the promotion of economy to ask the Minister to press forward the great undertakings with which he is now being charged without adequate assistance. Therefore, I think that justifies us in proceeding with the proposal.

Sir D. MACLEAN: This is the first time since this House met that I have supported any increase in expenditure, but on this occasion I think my right hon. Friend is right, and that the additional Under-Secretary, although it is not really an additional Under-Secretary, is a just and a proper appointment. I would only ask him this question. At no distant date, I hope, the Poor Law will be brought within the scheme of the Bill which is now before the House, and I would suggest to him that he might give us an undertaking that when that is brought in he will not come to us to ask for an additional Under-Secretary, because I think that, great as that work must be and to some extent onerous as must be the conditions which will come within the ambit of the Ministry of Health Act, as it then will be, I certainly think that with one Minister in charge of two Under-Secretaries they ought to be able to cope with the duties as far as the Parliamentary work and the administrative work in Whitehall are concerned.

Dr. ADDISON: I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance fully now.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in his place, for we see the truth of what he said the other day on the Budget, that when any effort is made towards economy the House of Commons is the last place in which economy is supported. We have a representative of the Government and the Leader of what Opposition there is in this House—[An HON. MEMBER: "Do not be too funny!"]—combining together to recommend the expenditure of an additional £l,500 a year in order that there may be
for this Department two Under-Secretaries to assist the Minister of Health. My right hon. Friend, defending this course, relying, I cannot help thinking, on the inexperience of a good many Members of this House, tries to represent that the Parliamentary Secretaries are of very great importance in carrying out the departmental work, but, as a matter of fact, the position of Parliamentary Undersecretary in the main is in Parliament.

Dr. ADDISON: Not as I use them.

Lord H. CECIL: Then he uses them improperly and had better give up the practice. If he asked for an additional permanent secretary that might or might not be a reasonable demand, but Parliamentary Under-Secretaries are necessary for the purposes of answering questions and of defending policies before Parliament. No doubt in this case there will be a good many questions, and I think either the Minister of Health or one Undersecretary can easily cope with the work. It means only attending for three-quarters of an hour at the beginning of the Parliamentary sitting. The Health Department is not likely to be a very controversial Department like the Army or Navy. There is not likely to be a great dispute over health policy every year, and a great deal of the Parliamentary business arising in consequence of that legislation will probably be of a non-controversial type. I am quite confident that the Minister and one Under-Secretary could easily cope with the Parliamentary work of the Department. In truth and in fact, my right hon. Friend wants to appoint two Undersecretaries, probably promising supporters of the Government. He does not wish to have this valuable piece of patronage taken away from him. There can be no other reason. I have been in the House a good many years—longer than my right hon. Friend—and I say it is perfectly absurd to tell the House of Commons that one Under-Secretary could not perfectly well suffice. It is merely another instance of official extravagance—the desire to spend public money and to make it a little easier or more convenient in one respect or another, with a total indifference to national economy. My right hon. Friend does not care two straws whether he spends £1,500 of Parliamentary money. Look at the Labour party, who come to the House and tell us
of extravagance and the necessity of reducing taxation! But when it comes to a point of spending public money, who is so anxious to waste it on any Under-Secretary, knowing nothing whatever about public exigencies or what official support is necessary to carry on public business?

Dr. ADDISON: The Noble Lord cannot speak from experience of what happens in Government Departments.

Lord H. CECIL: I am quite aware that I have not held office, if the right hon. Gentleman meant that as a taunt.

Dr. ADDISON: I was only mentioning it.

Lord H. CECIL: But I have known a great many who have had experience, and have a great deal of knowledge of the matter I am discussing. Observe the enthusiasm for public extravagance! Observe the indignation of the Government the moment a demand is made to save public money! How can you get anyone to believe in your public economy? All the world will see that, where it is a case of appointing a Member of the House of Commons at £1,500 a year, the House of Commons' desire for economy disappears. Do you not see that you discredit the House of Commons and the whole cry for economy? You lower the whole level of the effort you are professing to make to reduce expenditure, if you do a perfectly gratuitous piece of extravagance, merely to give another post to a supporter in the House of Commons. I protest, although I shall probably be alone, for I know national economy is a matter of lip-service, and no one is prepared to carry it out.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: The Noble Lord has been talking about economy. I do not know whether he has realised that this Bill is for the preservation of the health of the people of this country. He has been complaining that this £l,500 is to be spent on an Under-Secretary, and yet he went into the Lobby the other day to vote £650,000,000 for an Army to bring about the destruction of life.

Lord H. CECIL: How many lives has a Parliamentary Under-Secretary saved?

Mr. GRIFFITHS: This Bill has been discussed in Committee and on Report in this House, and not a word from any Member did I hear protesting against the appointment of this Under-Secretary. I may perhaps point out to the Noble Lord
that the Welsh Parliamentary party, with the assistance of the Labour party, has forced this as much as anybody. There is a Secretary for Ireland and a Secretary for Scotland, but the Insurance Commissioners are now to be embodied in this Ministry of Health Bill, and we have no one from Wales representing us in this House at all. Therefore, we are going to see to it that Wales has better treatment in the future in this House than she has had in the past. I hope that the House will reject the Amendment put forward by the House of Lords, because it is not only in economy that we believe, but in efficiency as well, and this Bill cannot be administered efficiently unless we get these two Parliamentary Secretaries.

Colonel GRETTON: I think that my hon. Friend who has just addressed the House is a little modest in disclaiming that Wales has no one to represent her in the affairs of this country. The Prime Minister, as the head and centre of the Government, probably would not advance that plea. This Debate is really remarkable. Those of us who have had some experience of this House always look on with the utmost suspicion when Members on both Front Benches agree in proposing to spend money in making appointments. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Hugh Cecil) based his argument chiefly on the ground of public economy. That certainly should not be left out of the case. But the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill has not made out his argument in such a way as to convince anyone who really knows the working of departmental government in relation to Parliament that two Undersecretaries are necessary to carry on the Parliamentary business of this new Department. If his argument is good, then he practically stated to the House of Commons that the new Department which he is setting up is more than any one man can manage. His Department itself is overwhelmed, top-heavy at the very start. I cannot think that this is the argument which he wishes to advance. In that case we are reduced to the argument that for certain reasons, because there have been two Parliamentary Secretaries in certain directions, the Minister in charge of the Bill desires that those two Parliamentary Secretaries shall be maintained, although this new Ministry is being set up. I think that the House of Commons ought to be extremely jealous of in any way extending, or even maintaining, patronage of the
Government among Members of this House. Already, in the Division Lobby, the Government is able to produce upwards of 100 Members who are members of the Ministry—Under-Secretaries, Parliamentary Secretaries, and various others. The House of Commons ought to restrain this, and to maintain its freedom, and not to extend the patronage of the Government except under the strongest compulsion and on the most urgent grounds of public policy for the benefit of the State. For these reasons I should be glad to go into the Division Lobby and vote against this proposed expenditure of public money, for which no sufficient case has been made out, and which will undoubtedly maintain and extend the influence of the Government in the House of Commons in the direction of appointing members and paying them salaries in connection with the Government. It ought to be resisted. I do not wish to oppose the Government on any occasion on which I am not absolutely obliged to, but this is one of those occasions on which I feel bound to rise and enter a protest.

Major LLOYD-GREAME: In view of the attitude which I adopted when a Bill relating to the re-election of Ministers was before the House, I am sure I shall not be accused of making it unduly easy for the Government to appoint new Ministers. But I do protest absolutely against the point of view which has been advanced by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil). His speech was a very plausible one, and very witty, as his speeches always are. But, although I do not know what has been in the past the function of a Parliamentary Secretary, he certainly completely misrepresented what ought to be that function in the future, if this House is to keep an effective control over administration in Government departments. I have no experience of being a Parliamentary Secretary, but I have had experience of being a joint permanent secretary of a Ministry, and that from experience I can say that that function of the Parliamentary Secretary is absolutely essential, if this House is to keep control over administration. The Noble Lord wants economy in the administration of every public office.
It is not £1,500 a year that will introduce economy in any Ministry, but having sufficient control by the Minister and his
deputies, and having sufficient power to see economy enforced in the administration which they control. It is for that reason that I shall support the proposal to have a second Parliamentary Secretary. The Noble Lord suggests that the function of a Parliamentary Secretary is to answer questions, but that has been far too long his function. The officials of the Department settle the answers, and possibly they are not satisfactory, and they are brought to the notice of the busy chief perhaps an hour before the House meets. He runs through them quickly, and often unsatisfactory answers are given. That is an unsatisfactory start to give to a new Minister of Health, whereas with his two Parliamentary Secretaries he can organise things in such a way that when his deputies answer questions they will not give answers simply prepared by the officials of the Department, because they will know what they are responsible for. I think it is simply camouflage to say that this is an unnecessary expenditure. If you give what is now asked for, you will have a right to go to the Minister and say that you have two Parliamentary Secretaries and you must see that your Department is economically administered. If you do not do this, he will be able to say, "I asked for two Secretaries and you refused to allow them."

Mr. HOHLER: It is quite a new thing to me to hear that the Parliamentary Secretary can control the expenditure of this Department, for I cannot conceive any case in which he would. Any question raising a matter of importance would probably not only come before the Secretary of State himself, but would also go before the Cabinet, and, therefore, I can conceive no useful purpose that can be served with a second Parliamentary Secretary. It has been pointed out that this is a new Ministry, but up to the present we have had no experience of what work will be involved. I am not satisfied that there will be anything of a controversial nature in regard to the work of this new Ministry. I doubt whether there will be any such questions arise.
I do not think there will be the least difficulty, and I protest, until we have had some experience of what these new duties will involve, against incurring this additional expenditure. As a rule Parliamentary Secretaries are very short-lived, because they are often quickly transferred
to other Departments, and it is not long before they are sent somewhere else. Answers to questions are not settled by the Under-Secretaries at all, but by the ordinary Civil servants who provide the answers, and they have to carefully consider the answers which they give. If it happens to be a question of expenditure they will not go to the Under-Secretary, but to the chief of the Department. Supposing an Under-Secretary says he will not incur this expense, and they cannot agree, is he going to resign?
I protest absolutely against this second appointment. This immense Government control is a great danger. We had it in the late War. With from eighty to one hundred Members of the House in the Government they can keep themselves in office. Let us see if we are justified in doing it before we incur this expenditure. Let the Minister come down and say that he is overloaded with business, and that he really requires a second Parliamentary Secretary to assist him, and the House may be trusted in reason to do that which is right. Apparently, my right hon. Friend who leads the Liberal Opposition is not quite happy about it, because he asks for an undertaking in regard to some other Ministry. Let us divide and take a strong line, and let us strike for economy. Everybody wants to patronise somebody else. It is the same in the country, and it is a great cause of unsettlement. How can we say that these demands are unreasonable and unjust when the Government are the first offenders. If the Noble Lord goes to a Division I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting him.

Mr. DEVLIN: The House must be tremendously impressed not only with the character of the speeches which have been delivered, but with the source from which they have come. I am surprised that an old and seasoned Member of this House like the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Hohler) should have allowed this Bill to pass through its various stages before he recognises the malevolence of the transaction.

Mr. HOHLER: In Committee upstairs I had no chance.

Mr. DEVLIN: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I am a Member of a Committee upstairs, and that I get every chance. I am comparatively a young Member compared with the hon. Gentleman, but I would advise him not to go on a Committee unless he takes advantage of
his opportunities. This Bill has been discussed in this House on First Heading, on Second Reading, and on Report stage, and we have not had a single protest made against the proposal until the House of Lords, the great symposium of sound economists, comes along and recognises that the Empire is stricken to its foundations because there is to be an additional Under-Secretary appointed for the administration of a great measure of this character. This question of public health is a very vital matter. These Bills have been introduced into this House so that when they operate this may be a land fit for heroes to live in, but, because in pursuance of the policy of creating a paradise for potential heroes there is to be an additional official appointed, up rises all the economists. I used to think that they were all reactionaries; now we are told that they are the sound vocal economists of this House, and that they are all up in arms against it. In the first place, I think the proposal should be rejected because it comes from the House of Lords. No good comes from that quarter. The Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil), during all the varied discus-sins upon this most profound and vital matter of public interest, has never once offered the slightest contribution to the common reservoir of wisdom that has actuated this assembly in this great and important question. But the Noble Lord would have far more attention paid to his always brilliant speeches in this House when he poses as an advocate of economy if he were consistent in this matter. Does he think it makes for financial stability or sound economy to preserve an Army of Occupation of 40,000 soldiers in Ireland for the suppression of their will? If he is in a genuinely saving mood, if he wants to save public funds for other matters of great national importance, let him rise up here with his accustomed eloquence and speak from his heart about the appalling conditions which send 40,000 of an Army of Occupation to a sister island to prevent the constitutional will of the people of that island being expressed. It is not a question of £1,500 or of £15,000: it is a question of millions of money, which, instead of being used in trampling upon the people's constitutional rights, could be spent in making for the peace, happiness, and comfort of countless men and women. I am not concerned with Ministers or Assistant-Secretaries or Under-Secretaries. If the Noble Lord rises to propose
that we have no Ministers at all I will second it. I believe that in intellect he and I are quite the same, and that after this Division, although we have never spoken to each other, we could shake hands in the Lobby on this. We have a Chief Secretary for Ireland. We never see him. He is never here. I do not know whether Ireland suffers or whether England does by that unfortunate coincidence. But we can do without a Minister in Ireland—the one bright spot in the British Empire, and if we can do that surely in a country governed by a spirit of such public stability we could do without a Minister in England. It is not a matter of any concern whether we have Cabinet Ministers or Under-Secretaries. There might be a coalition between the Noble Lord and myself to govern both England and Ireland. But I suspect economy coming from the House of Lords. It did not enter into the bosom of any wiseacres in this House until they got orders from the House of Lords. I have laid down two principles for myself since the General Election. I will never vote for the Government and never support anything that comes from the House of Lords. If it were not for the first principle. But I would support the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot possibly support this Government under any circumstances—any conceivable set of circumstances, and I cannot support the Noble Lord because I do not like him to think that everything that comes from the House of Lords is sacrosanct. I take the opposite view. Therefore, I am in a dilemma, and I shall not vote at all. If I were an Englishman, deeply interested in the successful operation of these two great measures of housing and public health, and if I listened, as I have listened, to the right hon. Gentleman who, in my judgment, is a most modest man, and allow mo, if I may do so without offence, to say he is not to be regarded as a picturesque figure in the public life of this country—there is only one thing after all that tells in my judgment in politics, and that is the record of the man in rendering human service, in promoting the cause of humanity, in lifting the poor and wretched out of their squalor and wretchedness. These two great measures for promoting the public health and the creation of better houses for the toiling masses of these Islands—these are higher monuments than the pages of rhetoric which will stand as a record of statesmanship of so many men in this House

Mr. G. TERRELL: I do not at all object to the expenditure on the appointment of the two Under-secretaries. But if this Minister has two Parliamentary Secretaries to assist him in his duties he himself ought to be in attendance in the House to answer questions. We have been rather oppressed in the last few years by Undersecretaries attempting to answer questions—and very important questions. The result has been what you, Mr. Speaker, have complained of—a great many supplementary questions, because the junior Members of the Government were unable to give satisfactory answers or to deal with matters which arose. The Minister

should allow the Under-Secretaries to do the office work, and he should attend to the work in this House. This would, I suggest, lead to a smoother working of the Departments. I do not for one moment suggest that he will not give his personal time and attendance here, but I would suggest that by so doing we shall get satisfactory and authoritative answers instead of merely written replies prepared by the Departments.

Question put, "This this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 170; Noes 25.

Division No. 35.]
AYES.
10.49 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Parry, Major Thomas Henry


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Peek, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Pratt, John William


Baird, John Lawrence
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Baldwin, Stanley
Greenwood, Col. sir Hamar
Purchase, H. G.


Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)
Gregory, Holman
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Barnett, Captain Richard W.
Grundy, T. W.
Reid, D. D.


Barnston, Major Harry
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)
Remer, J. B.


Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)
Hacking, Captain D. H.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Hartshorn, V.
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Belt, James (Ormskirk)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)
Rodger, A. K.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Samuels, Rt. Hon. A.W. (Dublin Univ.)


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Hilder, Lieutenant-Colonel F.
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)
Hirst, G. H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.


Birchall, Major J. D.
Holmes, J. S.
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)


Bird, Alfred
Hood, Joseph
Shaw, Tom (Preston)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)


Breese, Major C. E.
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hurd, P. A.
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander


Brittain, Sir Harry E.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Jesson, C.
Stephenson, Col. H. K.


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Johnson, L. S.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Sturrock, J. Long-


Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sugden, Lieut. W. H.


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sutherland, Sir William


Cairns, John
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Swan, J. E. C.


Cape, Tom
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Carr, W. T.
Kellaway, Frederick George
Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)


Casey, T. W.
Lane-Fox, Major G. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Cayzer, Major H. R.
Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)
Townley, Maximillian G.


Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender
Lorden, John William
Tryon, Major George Clement


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Lort-Williams, J.
Waddington, R.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Walsh, S. (Ince, Lanes.)


Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.
Lunn, William
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.
Mackinder, Halford J.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
M'Lean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Cory, J. H. (Cardiff)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Courthope, Major George Loyd
M'Neill, Ronald (Canterbury)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Whitla, Sir William


Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Dawes, J. A.
Mitchell, William Lane
Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)


Edge, Captain William
Moles, Thomas
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Eiliot, Capt W. E. (Lanark)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Winterton, Major Earl


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Mosley, Oswald
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Eyres-Monsell, Com.
Mount, William Arthur
Worsfold, T. Cato


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)



Foxcroft, Capt. Charles Talbot
Neal, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)



Ganzoni, Captain F. C
Parker, James



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Hayward, Major Evan
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Archdale, Edward M.
Hogge, J. M.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Atkey, A. R.
Inskip, T. W. H.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Balfour, Georga (Hampstead)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Betterton, H. B.
Lindsay, William Arthur
Wolmer, viscount


Borwick, Major G. O.
Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.



Clough, R.
Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hohler and Colonel Gretton.


Colfox, Major W. P.
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)



Dennis, J. W.




Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: After the word "determine," insert the words
and in the making of such appointments shall give equal consideration to the suitability of persons of both sexes.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. G. THORNE: I desire to support the Amendment of the Lords, not because the Amendment comes from the Lords, but because it originated with the Commons. I would ask the Government if they would give some explanation why they accept from the Lords what they refused from the Commons. This Amendment has a rather interesting history. Not in the precise words, but with the same object, I had the honour of moving this Amendment upstairs in Committee. The Government then refused to accept it. We carried it to a Division and in that Division we had a majority in favour of my Amendment. It was assumed by those who voted for it that the Government would accept that decision, and I think it was the desire of my right hon. Friend to accept it, but when we came to the Report stage, not the right hon. Gentleman but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury came down with a Motion to reject the words which the Committee had put in. I entered my protest against that course, but unfortunately the members of the Committee not being present the words were struck out. Then the Bill goes to the Lords and it comes back to us with this Amendment which, although not in the precise terms of my Amendment, has the same object, and is to prevent discrimination between the sexes in the appointment of these officers. Now the Government accept from the Lords what they had previously refused to grant to the Commons. Therefore, the position is entirely different from that which arose on the last Amendment. There is no suggestion of accepting something from the Lords against what the Commons pro-
posed, but it is a case of the Lords helping us to do what we ought to do for ourselves in the Commons. Under these circumstances, while accepting the Amendment which comes from the Lords, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some explanation of the circumstances under which this rather extreme course was taken.

Dr. ADDISON: On consideration of the words accepted in Committee it was quite clear that they raised more difficulties than they settled, and, therefore, on Report, my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury made the Motion to which my hon. Friend (Mr. Thorne) has referred. We wanted to meet the spirit of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and therefore cast about for words to give effect to it. These words were devised for the purpose, and I am glad that my hon. Friend accepts them.

CLAUSE 7.—(Seal, Style and Acts of Minister.)

(5) Sub-sections (2) to (4) of Section eleven and Section twelve of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916, shall apply to the Minister and the Ministry of Health, and to the office of the Minister of Health and in like manner as they apply to the Ministers and Ministries mentioned in those Sections:

Provided that it shall be lawful for two secretaries of the Ministry to sit as Members of the Commons House of Parliament at the same time.

Lords Amendment: Leave out the words
Provided that it shall be lawful for two secretaries of the Ministry to sit as Members of the Commons House of Parliament at the same time.

—Disagreed with.

CLAUSE 8.—(Provisions as to Orders in Council.)

"(3) In the case of a draft of an Order providing for any transfers of powers or duties to or from the Minister under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section3 of this Act, the Order shall not be made until both Houses by Resolution have approved the draft or except subject to any modifications and adaptations which may be
agreed to by both Houses, and in the case of a draft of any other Order which is required to be laid as aforesaid, if either House before the expiration of such thirty days presents an Addres to His Majesty against the draft, or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new draft Order.

Lords Amendments:

After the word "Act" ["Section 3 of this Set"], insert the words
or for the establishment of any consultative council under Section four thereof.

—Agreed to.

Leave out the words
or except subject to any modifications and adaptations which may be.

—Agreed to.

After the word "Houses" ["agreed to by both Houses"], insert the words
otherwise than as so modified.

—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Application to Ireland.)

(1)For the purpose of promoting the health of the people in Ireland and exercising the powers conferred on him by this Act the Chief Secretary shall be the Minister of Health for Ireland, and it shall be his duty as such Minister to take all such steps as may be desirable to secure the effective carrying out and co-ordination of measures conducive to health, including measures for the prevention and cure of diseases, the treatment of physical and mental defects, the initiation and direction of research, the collection, preparation, publication, and dissemination of information and statistics relating thereto, and the training of persons for health services.

(2)The provisions of this Act with respect to consultative councils shall apply to Ireland with the substitution therein of the Lord Lieutenant for His Majesty and with the addition of the following provision:—

Lords Amendments: After the word "the" ["the effective"], insert the word
preparation.

—Agreed to.

After the word "diseases," insert the words
the avoidance of fraud in connection with alleged remedies there for.

—Agreed to.

After the word "defects," insert the words
the treatment and care of the blind.

—Agreed to.

After the word "Majesty," insert the words
of Ireland for England and Wales and of the "Dublin Gazette" for the "London Gazette.

—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Short Title, Commencement, and Repeal, and Interpretations.)

(1) This Act may be cited as the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, and shall come into operation upon such day or days as may be appointed by Order in Council, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and provisions of this Act:

Provided that the day appointed for the transfer of the powers of the Minister of Pensions shall not be earlier than one year after the termination of the present War.

Lords Amendments: After the word "year," insert the words
or later than three years.

—Agreed to.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.

Committee nominated of Dr. Addison, Major Astor, Dr. Murray, Mr. Griffiths, and Captain Edge.

Three to be the quorum.

To withdraw immediately.—[Dr. Addison.]

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported later, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Dr. Addison.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — DISCHARGED SOLDIERS' PROCESSION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pratt.]

Mr. ADAMSON: I desire to ask the Home Secretary whether he can give the House any information regarding the serious trouble which arose outside the House this afternoon between a procession of discharged soldiers and sailors and the police, and also to ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what the Government intend doing with a view of removing the causes which lead to processions such as this? I understand that the procession consisted entirely of discharged and demobilised soldiers, and they were making their way from a meeting in Hyde Park to the House of Commons with the intention of interviewing the Prime Minister and the Minister
of Labour, and of ascertaining whether it was possible for them to get work. Judging the occurrence with very little information, it seems that the purpose of these men may be summed up in a very few words. I am quite aware of the regulations prohibiting such processions coming within a certain distance of the House, but there is just the possibility that the men who made up the procession were unaware of the regulation, and were of the opinion that they were quite within their rights in coming down here on a matter which to them is of vital importance. These men left their work in order to answer the country's call. In many cases they were promised their work on their return. They come back to find that it is impossible for them tot get employment. Evidently they do not want employment doles; they want to ascertain whether the Government can find them employment. This is a matter that is causing a considerable amount of irritation throughout the country, and unless the Government can find some means of dealing effectively with the demand of these unemployed men we may be face to face with more serious trouble in the near future than we have had up to now. What I would like to know is whether the Government are in a position to state what they intend doing, with a view of preventing a recurrence of such scenes. The Government have had opportunities of showing their sympathy and of proving their intentions in this particular matter. The Labour party, by amendment to the King's Speech, raised this very question. They also raised it later on in another form, when they introduced their Out-of-Work Bill. Evidently neither the Amendment nor the Bill introduced by the Labour party met with the approval of the Government, and we would like to know what are the proposals of the Government themselves. If the suggested remedies of the Labour party were not sufficiently comprehensive or drafted in a way that could not meet with the approval of the Government, then I think we are entitled to ask the Government what they are prepared to do. At the moment we have a very large army of unemployed men and women. Many of them are in the position of the men who made up that procession this afternoon. They want work. Can the Government inform us what they intend to do with a view to providing work? It will be far better for the men and for
the country and for the Government to face the finding of work for the unemployed of this country than to continue to pay unemployed dole—that is neither good for the recipient nor for the country. The Government would be well advised to face the seriousness of the situation. I am certain that neither they nor any other section of the people of this country desire to see a recurrence of the scenes that evidently have taken place outside the House to-day. But unless this festering sore is dealt with by the Government effectively and rapidly, this is only the beginning of such scenes. Therefore we are entitled not only to ask if the Home Secretary can give us any information regarding the occurrence this evening, but also if he can inform us what the Government intend doing with a view to removing the cause which has led to this scene and may lead to more serious scenes in the future.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): There was this afternoon, unfortunately, a somewhat serious situation as between a procession of discharged soldiers and sailors and the police. I cannot agree for a moment that the cause of the unfortunate situation was the lack of unemployment, or the lack of work, or that it had anything to do with it, or had anything whatever to do with a legitimate grievance. The cause of the unfortunate situation was that the men, unfortunately, acted under the control of wild spirits who were amongst them, instead of under their own proper leaders. What did happen was that there was a procession to Hyde Park, and at the meeting in Hyde Park it was suggested that a procession should be formed to go to Buckingham Palace and the House of Commons. The police explained to the men's leaders that that was impossible and could not be allowed; that it was contrary to the Sessional Orders of this House. The leaders of the men, so far as I have been able to ascertain, or those who appeared to be leaders of the soldiers and sailors, were very anxious to try to prevent any such procession taking place, but they were. unable to do so. The police therefore were obliged to take steps to bar the way of the procession. They barred the way by Constitution Hill and the procession went down Grosvenor Place and tried to turn up New Palace Road. There they were barred again by the police, and as the road happened to
be under repair there were missives handy for the wild spirits and they used blocks of wood to assail the police and used the poles to trip up the horses of the mounted police. The same sort of scene occurred again outside Parliament Square. From first to last the police behaved with the greatest restraint. They endeavoured to avoid any trouble, they tolerated very bad treatment from the crowd, many of them were injured and finally it was absolutely necessary, so threatening was the attitude of the crowd, to draw their truncheons and to charge them and disperse them, which they did, and the truncheons were returned to their cases at the earliest possible opportunity. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the police behaved throughout with the utmost rectitude of conduct; great toleration and great patience and forbearance, and only took strong measures when they were absolutely obliged to do so. With regard to the cause of the dissatisfaction of the crowd, we cannot possibly debate that question in the short time that is left on the Motion for the Adjournment. I do not know beyond what rumour has reached me what the meeting in Hyde Park was about. I have not seen the resolutions, and have, therefore, no definite knowledge what it was, but, of course, that it was dissatisfaction by discharged soldiers and sailors at not being able to got back into" their places in civil life one has no doubt. Let me, however, remind the House that the problem of getting these men back into civil life is an enormous one. From the Army alone there have been something over 2,500,000 of men discharged, and the rate of absorption of those men into their civil employment in this country has been much more rapid than in any other country that has been fighting. When the facts and figures come out, if there is to be a Debate upon it, I think the House will see that the rate of absorption has been, although not perfect, much more rapid and satisfactory than one could have imagined who really understood and had faced the problem. I do not propose now to go into a detailed Debate upon that subject. I understood that it was the conduct of the police that was going to be attacked. I was not aware that the larger question was going to be raised, and in any case it could not be raised satisfactorily on a mere Motion for the Adjournment. All I can say is that,
so far as the police are concerned, so far as the information that I have been able to obtain is concerned, they have behaved throughout in a way worthy of the highest commendation, and that all the trouble arose from the fact that wild spirits—whether they were trade union spirits or not I do not know, and I do not believe they can be—got amongst these men and got the better of them, and supplanted their own and saner leaders, and that that was the cause of the whole trouble.

Mr. HOGGE: I am sure everybody in the House will agree that we cannot discuss the cause of this unfortunate affair in the short period of half an hour. From what I have heard of the story of my right hon. Friend about the procession from Hyde Park to the House, and what happened subsequently, he himself is not yet in possession of the full facts. I could give him considerably more information than apparently ho has been in possession of yet, which would enable him to understand clearly what has happened. I do not propose at this hour to discuss the question of the cause. I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government will set down on Wednesday the Ministry of Labour Vote, in order that this may be discussed, or whether on Thursday they will substitute the Ministry of Labour Vote for the War Office Vote. I think I may claim to understand the mind of the discharged men, and I assure the House——

Major Earl WINTERTON: Why more than someone who has served in the War?

Mr. HOGGE: The Noble Lord interrupts on a point I never made. Always in this House, with great respect, I have never ventured to express for the serving men what I could not do, but I have ventured to express for those who have served what I was able to do. On behalf of those who have served, and those who have tried to serve the serving men, I think I understand the frame of mind. It is a fact that there are 300,000 discharged disabled men out of work at the present moment seeking employment. To-day's demonstration in London is only one of hundreds of demonstrations held simultaneously today all over the country. The men outside are hoping that the House will discuss this question from the point of view of causes, but, as we cannot discuss it to-night, I will not pretend to discuss it now. I ask explicitly on behalf of myself and my
right hon. Friend whether the Government will now alter the programme, and put the Ministry of Labour Vote down as the first Order on Wednesday, in order that those who are interested in discussing the causes and not the effects may be able to do so. I hope the Leader of the House, who has just come in, will give that assurance, so that the men to-morrow can see that the House is in earnest on this question.

Mr. BONAR LAW: May I say that if the hon. Member will put the question to me at the opening of business to-morrow, I will in the meantime consider whether the course he suggests is possible?

Mr. J. JONES: Is this, Mr. Speaker, going to remain a party question, and is
the Liberal opposition simply going to be counted as only being interested in this subject?

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Patronage Secretary of the Treasury what will be the course of business to-morrow?

Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): To-morrow the first Order will be the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, and we shall continue the Report and take the Third Reading. We shall also continue the Report stage, and take the Third Reading of the Housing Bill, and, if time permits, the Anthrax Bill.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four minutes after Eleven o'clock